[Bug 755139] Review Request: python-nose1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@draigbrady.com --- Comment #7 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-11-21 04:10:15 EST --- Will this spec create python3-nose rather than python3-nose1.1 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608575] Review Request: tinymce-spellchecker - TinyMCE spellchecker plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608575 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 04:18:51 EST --- Let's not to waste the workdone here. If the submitter will not respond or build the package within a week then I can give a try to build and submit it via bodhi. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 608574] Review Request: tinymce - Web based Javascript HTML WYSIWYG editor control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608574 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 04:19:54 EST --- Let's not to waste the workdone here. If the submitter will not respond or build the package within a week then I can give a try to build and submit it via bodhi. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755139] Review Request: python-nose1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139 --- Comment #8 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-11-21 04:24:02 EST --- Also for my own reference, I think it would be good if rebasing python-nose in RHEL, that both that and this package Provide: python-nose1 (Note that python-nose-1.0 is enough to build sqlalchemy at least) That would allow dependent packages to require just python-nose1 and not need to install the actual python-nose1.1 compat package too. The rebased package would also need to Conflicts: python-nose1.1 as the eggs would overlap. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755155] Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness-Multiple - TAP::Harness::Muliple Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755155 --- Comment #5 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2011-11-21 04:37:20 EST --- - A email for asking to change the LICENSE file in the sources is written. - patch for the LICENSE file is removed So I thought it is the best to overwrite release 3 of the specfile. - the requires Requires: perl(IO::CaptureOutput) Requires: perl(Test::Simple) are added - add the macro perl_default_filter current SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-TAP-Harness-Multiple-0.06-3.fc15.src.rpm The spec URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-TAP-Harness-Multiple.spec is a link to the overwritten file ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/perl-TAP-Harness-Multiple.spec.3 F17-scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3528989 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755484] Review Request: maven-toolchains-plugin - Maven plugin for sharing configuration across projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755484 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755484] New: Review Request: maven-toolchains-plugin - Maven plugin for sharing configuration across projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: maven-toolchains-plugin - Maven plugin for sharing configuration across projects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755484 Summary: Review Request: maven-toolchains-plugin - Maven plugin for sharing configuration across projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tra...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-toolchains-plugin/1.0/1/maven-toolchains-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-toolchains-plugin/1.0/1/maven-toolchains-plugin-1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: The Toolchains Plugins allows to share configuration across plugins. For example to make sure the plugins like compiler, surefire, javadoc, webstart etc. all use the same JDK for execution. Similarly to maven-enforcer-plugin, it allows to control environmental constraints in the 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 651591] Review Request: partiwm - partitioning window manager and related 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=651591 --- Comment #13 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2011-11-21 04:54:20 EST --- If it the same external project how it may be bundled? It is violate our guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755065] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy0.7 - compat package epel 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755065 --- Comment #3 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com 2011-11-21 05:06:32 EST --- Added README.Fedora and built with python-nose1.1 Spec URL: http://pbrady.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-sqlalchemy0.7.spec SRPM URL: http://pbrady.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-sqlalchemy0.7-0.7.3-3.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 755498] New: Review Request: trayer - Lightweight GTK2-based systray for UNIX desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: trayer - Lightweight GTK2-based systray for UNIX desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755498 Summary: Review Request: trayer - Lightweight GTK2-based systray for UNIX desktop Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nlmin...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/trayer-fedora/53c21d91c901fe3153393d92c4dd041c93d7e0b4/trayer.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Ignotus/trayer-fedora/blob/53c21d91c901fe3153393d92c4dd041c93d7e0b4/trayer-1.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm?raw=true Description: trayer is a small program designed to provide systray functionality present in GNOME/KDE desktop environments for window managers which do not support that function. System tray is a place, where various applications put their icons, so they are always visible presenting status of applications and allowing user to control programs. The code started out as an extraction from fbpanel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755139] Review Request: python-nose1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139 --- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2011-11-21 05:46:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Will this spec create python3-nose rather than python3-nose1.1 ? Indeed I missed this , I ignored the python3 case or rather suggested it should be there but given it is there then python3-nose1.1 is very correct and necessary. 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 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - 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=755510 nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr 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 755510] New: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - 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. Summary: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 Summary: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet Description: Display system informations in gnome shell status bar, such as memory usage, cpu usage, network rates… $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. As the SPEC file can build this gnome-shell-extension for F-15 and F-16, here is the rpmlint outputs on F-15 files. I was unable to deal with rpmlint errors with F-15 srpm file on a F-16 host (confusion about dist and fedora macros I suppose). But to be complete, mock builds this package for F-15 and F-16 without any problems. I haven't tried with rawhide. Should I? This is my first review for Fedora and my skill in such things is not complete. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/rpmlint, line 379, in module main() File /usr/bin/rpmlint, line 169, in main runChecks(pkg) File /usr/bin/rpmlint, line 229, in runChecks check.check(pkg) File /usr/share/rpmlint/SpecCheck.py, line 143, in check self.check_spec(pkg, self._spec_file) File /usr/share/rpmlint/SpecCheck.py, line 564, in check_spec pkgfile = pkg.files()[url.split(/)[-1]] KeyError: 'paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-78-g14ef176.tar.gz' $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. This review request comes after this bug report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710386 I'm a newcomer in such things for Fedora and not very familiar with packaging, but I'm volunteer for this package. I'll try to understand and to respect all the documentation and guidelines available on the contributor's part of the Fedora Web site, but any comments on the question are welcome. Last but not the least, as a newcomer, I'm also seeking a sponsor. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cordially, -- NVieville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754088] Review Request: python-restauth-common - Collects various code used in RestAuth server/client implementations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754088
--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 06:08:54
EST ---
MUST items:
[YES] rpmplint is silent
[YES] Package meets naming guidelines.
[YES] Package meets packaging guidelines.
[YES] Spec file matches base package name.
[YES] License file is present, matching with spec file.
[YES] Licensing Guidelines are met.
[!] Spec file is legible and in American English.
I would prefer summary like: Python module containing small set of classes
used by both RestAuth server/client implementations
or similar.
Description differs for python and python3! The python3 description is
probably for the restauth itself.
[YES] Sources match upstream.
[YES] Package builds OK.
[!] BuildRequires are correct.
I cannot find the python-setuptools-devel in rawhide.
Is the python-setuptools really needed? It seems to build OK without it.
[YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries.
[YES] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[YES] Package has no duplicity in %files.
[YES] Permission on files are set properly.
[NO] Spec file has consistant macro usage.
Please use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
of %{buildroot}.
[YES] Package is code or permissible content.
[YES] %doc files don't affect runtime.
[YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own.
[YES] All files are valid UTF-8.
Should items:
[YES] Package builds in mock.
[YES] Package uses sane scriptlets.
Some more comments:
There is extra space in both %doc (only cosmetic issue :)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())}
is probably not needed any more.
The defattr is also not needed.
AFAIK the above have only sense if it is planned to package for RHEL-5 EPEL. If
so there should be also more additions (e.g. %clean section, ...).
Please consider building and packaging the docs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 --- Comment #36 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr 2011-11-21 06:08:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) To no longer stall this review I suggest that I close this one and Nicolas open a new review with his SPEC file. Any objections? and (In reply to comment #35) It would be great to get a link to the new bug once that happens. After a short time trying to understand how to become a Fedora contributor (very big documentation): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 Hope this will get to the end! I'm also seeking a sponsor. Cordially, -- NVieville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 06:32:48 EST --- Sigh, I don't know why I forgot to test it in mock, as I normally do that. Here is an updated SRPM which does actually build in mock. Updated .spec at the same URL as before. http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection-0.003-2.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 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jpope...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpope...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755358] Review Request: jcal - Unix cal-like interface to libjalali
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755358 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jpope...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpope...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 651591] Review Request: partiwm - partitioning window manager and related 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=651591 --- Comment #14 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 07:03:34 EST --- parti + xpra + wimpiggy are one upstream project. The restriction on bundling does not apply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755069] Review Request: SpliX - Driver for QPDL/SPL2 printers (Samsung and several Xerox printers)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755069 Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||heday...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|heday...@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 751093] Review Request: jetty-artifact-remote-resources - Jetty toolchain artifact remote resources
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751093 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754972] Review Request: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup - XML diff and merge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754972 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754092] Review Request: python-restauth - Python RestAuth reference implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754092
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 08:08:29
EST ---
MUST items:
[YES] rpmplint is silent
[YES] Package meets naming guidelines.
[YES] Package meets packaging guidelines
I am not sure about the API/ABI compatibility policy of this project.
Shouldn't be there version requirement for python-restauth-common?
[YES] Spec file matches base package name.
[YES] License file is present, matching with spec file.
[YES] Licensing Guidelines are met.
[!] Spec file is legible and in American English.
I would prefer summary like: Reference implementation of RestAuth
specification in Python
or similar
I would tune the description a bit. I wouldn't note the python versions there
and I would probably re-word the text. Maybe you could also very briefly
describe what the RestAuth is (e.g. The RestAuth project is a system providing
shared authentication, authorization and preferences.).
[YES] Sources match upstream.
[YES] Package builds OK.
[!] BuildRequires are correct.
I cannot find the python-setuptools-devel in rawhide.
Is the python-setuptools really needed? It seems to build OK without it.
[YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries.
[YES] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[YES] Package has no duplicity in %files.
[YES] Permission on files are set properly.
[NO] Spec file has consistant macro usage.
Please use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
of %{buildroot}.
[YES] Package is code or permissible content.
[YES] %doc files don't affect runtime.
[YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own.
[YES] Spec file is valid UTF-8.
Should items:
[YES] Package builds in mock.
[YES] Package uses sane scriptlets.
Some more comments:
There is extra space in the second %doc (only cosmetic issue :)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())}
is probably not needed any more.
The defattr is also not needed.
AFAIK the above have only sense if it is planned to package for RHEL-5 EPEL. If
so there should be also more additions (e.g. %clean section, ...).
Please consider running the included test-suite as a part of the build process.
Please consider packaging the docs.
Please consider packaging the example script.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754972] Review Request: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup - XML diff and merge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754972
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 08:09:10
EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contains kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 Fedora 13)
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Missing defattr() in %files section
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Found : Packager: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
Found : Vendor: Fedora
[!]: MUST Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the
beginning of %install. (EPEL5)
[ ]: 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 is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/marca/754972/XML-DifferenceMarkup-1.04.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : d753b39fec3c8da3917c35c40d101fef
MD5SUM upstream package : d753b39fec3c8da3917c35c40d101fef
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[!]: MUST Package has a %clean section,
[Bug 754064] Review Request: python-mimeparse - Python module providing basic functions for parsing mime-type names
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754064 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2011-11-21 08:20:24 EST --- Thanks for the heads-uo. Earlier I contacted upstream for django-authenticator (and askbot,...) to clarify unbundling. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 624182] Review Request: stardict-xmllittre - Authoritative 19th century French dictionary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624182 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-21 08:32:43 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 751917] Review Request: ghc-zlib-enum - Enumerator interface for zlib compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751917 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-21 08:33:32 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 754092] Review Request: python-restauth - Python RestAuth reference implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754092 --- Comment #2 from Mathias Ertl m...@fsinf.at 2011-11-21 08:36:15 EST --- Version 0.5.1 of python-restauth depends on python-restauth-common = 0.5.1. (The versions are not by definition the same, they just happen to coincide). greetings, Mati -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754972] Review Request: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup - XML diff and merge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754972 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 08:40:25 EST --- I see. This is because I forgot to build-require libxml2-devel. I've uploaded fixed packages on the same locators. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ism...@olea.org Alias||idjc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755141] Review Request: gnome-system-log - A log viewer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755141 --- Comment #4 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 08:54:46 EST --- Sorry, I forgot to mention that it will only build in rawhide due to the GLib 2.31 dep. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ism...@olea.org Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698405] Review Request: mcollective - A framework to build server orchestration or parallel job execution systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698405 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey C. Ollie j...@ocjtech.us 2011-11-21 08:58:22 EST --- Spec URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/mcollective.spec SRPM URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/mcollective-1.3.1-2.fc16.src.rpm Yes, I will be maintaining branches for EPEL in addition to Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755066] Review Request: chromaprint - Library implementing the AcoustID fingerprinting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755066 Nikos Roussos ni...@autoverse.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ni...@autoverse.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ni...@autoverse.net Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755141] Review Request: gnome-system-log - A log viewer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755141 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 09:00:41 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-system-log Short Description: A log file viewer for GNOME Owners: mclasen, cosimoc, rstrode Branches: 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 722640] Review Request: R-qcc - SQC package for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722640 --- Comment #10 from John J. McDonough wb8...@arrl.net 2011-11-21 09:03:42 EST --- Once I actually managed to get back to it, upstream had significantly changed the tar, so a new RPM: http://jjmcd.fedorapeople.org/Download/R-qcc.spec http://jjmcd.fedorapeople.org/Download/R-qcc-2.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Still waiting to hear back from Luca. I suspect the R file is OK, the reference was most likely the text that supported the equations. The R-News is a bit messier, we'll see what he says. R-News has been replaced with the R Journal, which is pretty vague about licensing. It does say open, but doesn't reference any specifics. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732215] Review Request: mined - Powerful Text Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732215 --- Comment #11 from Matthieu Saulnier casper.le.fan...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 09:11:11 EST --- Hi Martin, thanks for the review. This is the latest release : Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/mined.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/mined-2011.19-2.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 755392] Review Request: chirp - A tool for programming two-way radio equipment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755392 Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||e...@christensenplace.us AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@christensenplace.us Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2011-11-21 09:17:09 EST --- I'll review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #2 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2011-11-21 09:22:45 EST --- * The SPEC file and the included in the SRC are not the same * License:GPLv2 License should be GPLv2+ as you can check in COPYING: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) _any later_ version. * Are you a Fedora contributor yet? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 699316] Review Request: inkscape-textext - Textext is an extension for Inkscape that allows adding LaTeX-generated editable text objects to the SVG drawings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699316 --- Comment #2 from Willington Vega wv...@wvega.com 2011-11-21 09:31:37 EST --- Thank you Fabian. I fixed those warnings and errors. The new SPEC and SRPM are here: SPEC: http://files.wvega.com/fedora/inkscape-textext/inkscape-textext.spec SRPM: http://files.wvega.com/fedora/inkscape-textext/inkscape-textext-0.4.4-2.20091127hg.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 755392] Review Request: chirp - A tool for programming two-way radio equipment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755392 John J. McDonough wb8...@arrl.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wb8...@arrl.net --- Comment #2 from John J. McDonough wb8...@arrl.net 2011-11-21 09:31:34 EST --- Thanks, Sparks. I considered it but I'm still a little uneasy about my reviewing/packaging skills. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730234] Review Request: jboss-ejb-3.1-api - EJB 3.1 API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730234 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755069] Review Request: SpliX - Driver for QPDL/SPL2 printers (Samsung and several Xerox printers)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755069 --- Comment #1 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 09:46:43 EST --- I updated the spec and srpm. The comment to source tarball contains correct URL. Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/splix.spec SRPM URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/splix-2.0.1-0.2.2021svn.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 755141] Review Request: gnome-system-log - A log viewer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755141 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-21 09:52:08 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 747051] Review Request: transmission-remote-gtk - GTK remote control for the Transmission BitTorrent 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=747051 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754972] Review Request: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup - XML diff and merge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754972 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 09:52:51 EST --- Sounds good. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747051] Review Request: transmission-remote-gtk - GTK remote control for the Transmission BitTorrent 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=747051 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 09:53:26 EST --- transmission-remote-gtk-0.7-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/transmission-remote-gtk-0.7-3.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755392] Review Request: chirp - A tool for programming two-way radio equipment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755392 --- Comment #3 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2011-11-21 09:59:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Thanks, Sparks. I considered it but I'm still a little uneasy about my reviewing/packaging skills. If you want to do the review and I'll check behind you we can do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755392] Review Request: chirp - A tool for programming two-way radio equipment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755392 --- Comment #4 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2011-11-21 10:00:59 EST --- The source for the patches need to be added to the SPEC. If you are going to keep them on your fpeople site then just add the URL there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754094] Review Request: restauth - Web-service providing shared authentication, authorization and preferences
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754094
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 10:17:35
EST ---
[NO] rpmplint is silent
restauth.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/restauth/localsettings.py
The noreplace flag would be probably worth here.
restauth.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RestAuth/common/models.py
restauth.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/RestAuth/common/urls.py
Empty files shouldn't be packages unless there is special need for this. It
would be good to forward this to upstream.
restauth.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/restauth/localsettings.py 0640L
Probably OK to hide the DB secrets.
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-group
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-import
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-service
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-manage
restauth.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary restauth-user
It would be good to have the man pages. It seems they are already included,
but not build and packaged.
[YES] Package meets naming guidelines.
[YES] Package meets packaging guidelines.
Maybe missing version requirement for python-restauth-common.
[YES] Spec file matches base package name.
[YES] License file is present, matching with spec file.
[YES] Licensing Guidelines are met.
[YES] Spec file is legible and in American English.
[YES] Sources match upstream.
[YES] Package builds OK.
[!] BuildRequires are correct.
I cannot find the python-setuptools-devel in rawhide.
Is the python-setuptools really needed? It seems to build OK without it.
[YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries.
[YES] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[YES] Package has no duplicity in %files.
[!] Permission on files are set properly.
The /etc/restauth/localsettings.py, maybe OK as commented above.
[NO] Spec file has consistant macro usage.
Please use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
of %{buildroot}.
[YES] Package is code or permissible content.
[YES] %doc files don't affect runtime.
[YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own.
[YES] All files are valid UTF-8.
Should items:
[YES] Package builds in mock.
[YES] Package uses sane scriptlets.
[NO] Package contains man pages.
[YES] Very simple functionality test passed.
Some more comments:
There is extra space in the second %doc (only cosmetic issue :)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())}
is probably not needed any more.
The defattr is also not needed.
AFAIK the above have only sense if it is planned to package for RHEL-5 EPEL. If
so there should be also more additions (e.g. %clean section, ...).
Shouldn't you go with brp-python-bytecompile script and only remove the
/etc/restauth/localsettings.pyo and /etc/restauth/localsettings.pyc before
packaging?
It would be good to build and package the man pages. There are also several
docs, that could be useful for end users, please consider packaging them.
What about the Python3? Is this supported? Upstream states Python 2.6 or later.
If it is supported please also consider packaging for python3.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755602] New: Review Request: json_diff - Generates diff between two JSON files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: json_diff - Generates diff between two JSON files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755602 Summary: Review Request: json_diff - Generates diff between two JSON files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mc...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/json_diff.spec SRPM URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/json_diff-0.9.1-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Compares two JSON files (http://json.org) and generates a new JSON file with the result. Allows exclusion of some keys from the comparison, or in other way to include only some keys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alekc...@googlemail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755615] New: Review Request: perl-Pod-Perldoc - Look up Perl documentation in Pod format
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-Pod-Perldoc - Look up Perl documentation in Pod format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755615 Summary: Review Request: perl-Pod-Perldoc - Look up Perl documentation in Pod format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Pod-Perldoc/perl-Pod-Perldoc.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Pod-Perldoc/perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.15.10-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: perldoc looks up a piece of documentation in .pod format that is embedded in the perl installation tree or in a perl script, and displays it via groff -man | $PAGER. This is primarily used for the documentation for the perl library modules. This package will dual-live with Pod::Perldoc from perl as upstream goes this way too. perl-Pod-Peldoc has been sub-packaged from perl in 4:5.14.2-202.fc17. The optional Tk tests are not enabled because Tk::Pod has not been yet packaged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751114] Review Request: sgabios - bios option rom for serial port display
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751114 --- Comment #2 from Justin M. Forbes jfor...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 10:43:22 EST --- Any update on 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 755392] Review Request: chirp - A tool for programming two-way radio equipment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755392 --- Comment #5 from Randall Randy Berry randyn3...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 10:45:11 EST --- Thanks Eric, Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/chirp.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/chirp-0.1.12-4.fc17.src.rpm Patch source for COPYING file relocation: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/PATCHES/chirp-COPYING-setup.py.patch Patch source for shebang removal. http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/PATCHES/chirp-0.1.12-shebang.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755602] Review Request: json_diff - Generates diff between two JSON 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=755602 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #7 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 10:58:56 EST --- Licensing figured out. Checked and it used to be that some xrootd code was in the package, but not anymore. Traces of the previous copyright replaced with CERN/IT/GT/DMS. Code simply links against xrootd libraries. License stays GPLv3. New srcrpm / spec: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-xrootd.spec http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-xrootd-2.2.4-1.src.rpm Koji builds (success): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3529805 (5E) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3529811 (6E) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3529816 (f16) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755602] Review Request: json_diff - Generates diff between two JSON 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=755602
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 11:20:32 EST
---
Review:
+ koji scratch build (f17)
-http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3529825
+ rpmlint on rpms gave
json_diff.src:28: W: macro-in-comment %_
json_diff.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %_
json_diff.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
json_diff.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary json_diff
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
== Above is not a blocker but at least macro warning can be fixed using %%
instead %
- source match with upstream as (sha1sum)
Ok I got confused here. upstream have latest today's commit with 0.9.0 tag
whereas packaged tarball is 0.9.1 version
+ rest looks fine
suggestions:
1) If building this on Fedora only then you don't need
a) buidlroot
b) cleaning of buildroot in %install
c) %clean section
d) defattr(-,root,root,-)
2) Python sitelib macro not needed now in Fedora
3) install command should preserve timestamp
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755093] Review Request: mactel-boot - boot tools for Intel Apple hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755093 --- Comment #9 from Matthew Garrett m...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 11:27:20 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/mactel-boot/mactel-boot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/mactel-boot/mactel-boot-0.1-2.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 755069] Review Request: SpliX - Driver for QPDL/SPL2 printers (Samsung and several Xerox printers)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755069 Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 11:39:18 EST --- My Review: MUST Items: === rpmlint output: splix.src: W: invalid-url Source0: splix-2.0.1.2021svn.tar.gz splix.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/splix-2.0.1/COPYING splix.src: W: non-coherent-filename splix-2.0.1-0.2.2021svn.src.rpm splix-2.0.1-0.2.2021svn.fc16.src.rpm splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/ppdfile.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x0d.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/compress.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/rendering.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/printer.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/bandplane.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/page.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/colors.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x0e.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/document.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/colors.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/semaphore.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/cache.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/request.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/request.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algorithm.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/band.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/compress.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/pstoqpdl.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/printer.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x11.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algorithm.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/document.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/algo0x11.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/qpdl.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/qpdl.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/ppdfile.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/band.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/semaphore.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/bandplane.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x0d.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/cache.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/algo0x0e.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/rendering.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/src/rastertoqpdl.cpp splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/options.h splix-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/splix/include/page.h splix.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: splix-2.0.1.2021svn.tar.gz 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 38 errors, 4 warnings. - Remarks: - invalid url errors are fine since it is a pre-release package - src.rpm file name doesn't match the release tag inside the package. IMO, since new src.rpms will be generated after importing the package, it should be fine. - COPYING file is a bit out-dated. It would be preferred if upstream is notified about this and update it. But doesn't look like to block the review. Naming: OK (pre-release snapshot) Spec file naming: OK Maybe including ChangeLog,TODO and Thanks files as doc is appropriate (specially Thanks file) Licensing: OK (GPLv2, spec matches) include license file as %doc: OK SPEC in American English: OK SPEC legibility: OK Builds fine: Koji Build:
[Bug 751114] Review Request: sgabios - bios option rom for serial port display
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751114 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 11:42:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Any update on this? Hello, Justin. Sorry for the hiatus. Here are my preliminary suggestions: * Please provide a way to recreate tarball. I advise you to add something like this: # svn export http://sgabios.googlecode.com/svn/trunk sgabios-0 # tar -cjvf sgabios-0.tar.bz2 sgabios-0 * Versioning is slightly wrong - release should be 0. * You added ExclusiveArch directive but this application (BIOS firmware) is intended to be used on every architecture which is supported by Qemu so this is wrong. I changed it a bit and dropped splitting to main and *-bin subpackages. Here is my variant: * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/sgabios/sgabios.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/sgabios/sgabios-0-0.1.20110621SVN.fc16.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3529886 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755358] Review Request: jcal - Unix cal-like interface to libjalali
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755358 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 12:09:13 EST --- As all the notes in the above comment are of 'nice-to-have' kind this package can be considered 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 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634
--- Comment #6 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 12:05:38 EST
---
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces.
Saaghar.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/Saaghar-0.9.69/README
Saaghar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary saaghar
Both this problems are task for upstream.
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Consider removing %defattr(-,root,root,-)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions
Wouldn't it be better to use URL http://sourceforge.net/projects/saaghar/ ?
Because I'm not able to switch http://pojh.iblogger.org/saaghar/
to english (there's probably not such an option) and the sourceforge page
points to it anyway.
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[OK] 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.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL.
a72340b04c782f7f39ba12afe5688306 Saaghar-0.9.69.tar.gz
cedf5c41a75a122f94a14f78611f336c Saaghar-data-59.90.07.xz
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[NA] 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.
[OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
qt4-devel works ok, however correct package name is qt-devel
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[NA] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[NA] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[OK] 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.
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[NA] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[OK] 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.
desktop-file-validate is OK in this case
[OK] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[-] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
I think Saaghar-data should require base package, but it's probably not a
problem as it is (i.e. when base package requires -data subpackage).
[-] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they
[Bug 754972] Review Request: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup - XML diff and merge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754972 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 12:19:52 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup Short Description: XML diff and merge Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: 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 755069] Review Request: SpliX - Driver for QPDL/SPL2 printers (Samsung and several Xerox printers)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755069 Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 12:28:02 EST --- Considering that there is no blocking problems, it is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751114] Review Request: sgabios - bios option rom for serial port display
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751114 --- Comment #4 from Justin M. Forbes jfor...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 12:53:37 EST --- Thanks for the catch on the tarball recreation steps. I started to put them in and seem to have left out that line. Versioning has been updated. The bin separation is mainly to support secondary arches, which will need this bios, but cannot build it, this is similar to what we are doing with seabios, which must be built on x86/x86_64 but needs to be installed on ppc/390/etc if they are using qemu. It is an ugly hack, but it is required. With this in place, compose will take the base empty package built on those arches, and pull in the noarch dep from an existing x86 build. Updated spec: http://jforbes.fedorapeople.org/rpmdrop/sgabios.spec Updated srpm: http://jforbes.fedorapeople.org/rpmdrop/sgabios-0-0.20110621SVN.fc16.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild for f16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3530311 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754972] Review Request: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup - XML diff and merge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754972 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-21 13:16:28 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 754879] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754879 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-21 13:15:33 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 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - 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=755510 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch 2011-11-21 13:28:06 EST --- *** Bug 710386 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 678955] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678955 --- Comment #15 from Jeff Moe (jebba) m...@blagblagblag.org 2011-11-21 13:07:07 EST --- The answer is that I don't know how to workaround the undefined-non-weak-symbol and that is what has blocked this package the whole time. :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 698051] Review Request: spim - An assembly language MIPS32 simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698051 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 12:51:16 EST --- Months have gone by. Do you still intend to move this review forward? If so, can you give me an expected time frame? 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 754879] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754879 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 754879] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754879 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 13:42:38 EST --- kup-0.3-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kup-0.3-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754879] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754879 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 13:45:38 EST --- kup-0.3-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kup-0.3-2.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 678955] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678955 --- Comment #14 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 12:49:42 EST --- Months have passed. Do you still intend to move this review forward? If so, can you give me an expected time frame? 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 755602] Review Request: json_diff - Generates diff between two JSON 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=755602 --- Comment #2 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 13:52:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) My koji build is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3530449 == Above is not a blocker but at least macro warning can be fixed using %% instead % All commented macros are now eliminated, they are actually used now. - source match with upstream as (sha1sum) Ok I got confused here. upstream have latest today's commit with 0.9.0 tag whereas packaged tarball is 0.9.1 version To make things even more confusing, it is now 0.9.2 (both in the upstream tag, at PyPI and in the package). suggestions: 1) If building this on Fedora only then you don't need a) buidlroot b) cleaning of buildroot in %install c) %clean section d) defattr(-,root,root,-) 2) Python sitelib macro not needed now in Fedora Package should be available even for EL-5. 3) install command should preserve timestamp http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps Just now using only python setup.py install. .spec file is at the same URL and .src.rpm at http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/json_diff-0.9.2-1.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 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 12:37:54 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: Saaghar Short Description: A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software Owners: hedayat Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 --- Comment #8 from Hedayat Vatankhah heday...@gmail.com 2011-11-21 12:26:00 EST --- Thanks for the (very tidy) review (and sorry for my not-that-good review). * Saaghar.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/Saaghar-0.9.69/README Saaghar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary saaghar Both this problems are task for upstream. - I'll contact upstream about them. * Consider removing %defattr(-,root,root,-) - OK * Wouldn't it be better to use URL http://sourceforge.net/projects/saaghar/ ? Because I'm not able to switch http://pojh.iblogger.org/saaghar/ to english (there's probably not such an option) and the sourceforge page points to it anyway. - You're right. It is a non-English website. I'll update the URL as you suggested. * qt4-devel works ok, however correct package name is qt-devel - OK, will be fixed. * I think Saaghar-data should require base package, but it's probably not a problem as it is (i.e. when base package requires -data subpackage) - hmmm... the base package must require the subpackage in this case, but I'm not sure if it is also needed in the other way around. But I'll consider your suggestion and might add that dependency too. Thanks again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755141] Review Request: gnome-system-log - A log viewer for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755141 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-11-21 14:16:33 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 14:16:33 EST --- Build done as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755093] Review Request: mactel-boot - boot tools for Intel Apple hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755093 --- Comment #10 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com 2011-11-21 14:21:26 EST --- It still doesn't work me as it is. Do the boot.efi symlink work for you? For me it always starts OS/X even when Fedora is chosen in the EFI boot menu. It works as expected when I replace the symlink with a real copy of grub.efi and bless it. (Or could the /EFI/redhat/grub.efi be blessed in place and boot.efi just be a place holder?) I am no big fan of the dependency to redhat-lsb. LSB compliance and all the dependencies should be optional. Very few packages depend on redhat-lsb - there is for example nothing in a standard installation with gnome-desktop that does. Most desktop machines do for example not want to have an MTA installed. I guess the package should own the whole System/Library/CoreServices path and remove it when the package is removed. OS/X will also create .disk_label and .disk_label.contentDetails when the Startup Disk is chosen - I guess they should be ghost (or explicitly removed) too so the directory can be removed. Not that I like the automatic blessing, but don't you need a bless in mactel-boot %post too to cover the case where grub2-efi already has been installed? The copyright Red Hat m...@redhat.com looks a bit strange - is that intentional? Finally a couple of very minor comments: It seems a bit strange that bless takes both the mount point and the path to the boot loader file which must be below the same mount point. Somebody will mess that up one day and make them point to different file systems. Wouldn't it be simpler to find the hfs device from the boot loader stats? mnt_new_table is leaking ... It doesn't matter and is off topic for a review, but ... There is a superfluous ';' after 'ln -s'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #37 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch 2011-11-21 13:28:06 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 755510 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-11-21 13:05:24 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 755093] Review Request: mactel-boot - boot tools for Intel Apple hardware
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755093 --- Comment #11 from Matthew Garrett m...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 14:37:39 EST --- %triggerin is defined as running in that scenario. The redhat-lsb thing is problematic, yes - but on the other hand parsing /etc/fedora-release directly is just miserable. I'll see if I can come up with a better solution. The symlink works for me. This may well be some hilarious difference in behaviour between different firmware releases, but I'll look into it more. Finding the appropriate mount point automatically is possible but an utter pain. It's not high on my list of priorities. I'm also not worried about explicitly freeing stuff that's in an application that does one thing and then exits :) The copyright statement is the standard way of indicating that it's owned by a corporate entity while still providing contact details of the individual who wrote 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 754436] Review Request: libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754436 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcla...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 14:48:32 EST --- Builds fine in mock rpmlint output: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm libvirt-gconfig.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt object APIs for processing object configuration libvirt-gconfig.x86_64: W: no-documentation libvirt-gconfig.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libvirt-gconfig-1.0.so.0.0.1 libvirt-gconfig.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libvirt-gconfig-1.0.so.0.0.1 libvirt-gconfig-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt object APIs for processing object configuration development files libvirt-glib.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt glib integration for events libvirt-glib.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt glib integration for events libvirt-glib.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libvirt-glib-0.0.1/COPYING libvirt-glib.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libvirt-glib-1.0.so.0.0.1 libvirt-glib.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libvirt-glib-1.0.so.0.0.1 libvirt-glib-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt glib integration for events development files libvirt-glib-python.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt glib integration for events python binding libvirt-glib-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/libvirtglibmod.so libvirtglibmod.so()(64bit) libvirt-glib-python.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/libvirtglibmod.a libvirt-gobject.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualization - visualization, actualization, vitalization libvirt-gobject.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt object APIs for managing virtualization hosts libvirt-gobject.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization - visualization, actualization, vitalization libvirt-gobject.x86_64: W: no-documentation libvirt-gobject.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libvirt-gobject-1.0.so.0.0.1 libvirt-gobject.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libvirt-gobject-1.0.so.0.0.1 libvirt-gobject-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualization - visualization, actualization, vitalization libvirt-gobject-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libvirt object APIs for managing virtualization hosts development files libvirt-gobject-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization - visualization, actualization, vitalization 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 16 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 754436] Review Request: libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754436 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 14:54:41 EST --- Quick preliminary review of the spec file: I guess you are aiming for building on old releases as well, which explains why you have rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install and a %clean section. In F16/F17, these are no longer needed. ldconfig in %post/%postun is indeed missing Is the 2008 date in %changelog a typo ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755484] Review Request: maven-toolchains-plugin - Maven plugin for sharing configuration across projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755484 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 14:50:21 EST --- Please use the upstream tarball http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-toolchains-plugin/1.0/maven-toolchains-plugin-1.0-source-release.zip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 15:06:57 EST --- Saaghar-0.9.69-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Saaghar-0.9.69-1.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 678634] Review Request: Saaghar - A Cross-Platform Persian Poetry Software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678634 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 15:07:05 EST --- Saaghar-0.9.69-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Saaghar-0.9.69-1.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 187318] Review Request: mondo - A program which a Linux user can utilize to create a rescue/restore CD/tape
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Comment #56 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-11-21 16:11:37 EST --- buffer will need to be resubmitted for review to get it back in Fedora. If it builds fine, hopefully that won't be hard to do then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739331] Rename Review: libreoffice-voikko - Finnish spellchecker and hyphenator extension for LibreOffice
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739331 Ville-Pekka Vainio vpvai...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-11-21 16:12:13 --- Comment #14 from Ville-Pekka Vainio vpvai...@iki.fi 2011-11-21 16:12:13 EST --- I have retired openoffice.org-voikko in devel and I've also posted a rel-eng ticket about it: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4978 . The ticket has not been answered, but I'll close this bug anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755727] New: Review Request: telepathy-farstream - Telepathy client library to handle Call channels
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: telepathy-farstream - Telepathy client library to handle Call channels https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755727 Summary: Review Request: telepathy-farstream - Telepathy client library to handle Call channels Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bdpep...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/telepathy-farstream.spec SRPM URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/telepathy-farstream-0.1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: telepathy-farstream is a Telepathy client library that uses Farsight2 to handle Call channels Scratch build (Rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3530748 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747051] Review Request: transmission-remote-gtk - GTK remote control for the Transmission BitTorrent 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=747051 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 17:54:42 EST --- transmission-remote-gtk-0.7-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 17:52:39 EST --- Package ghc-hakyll-3.2.0.10-1.fc15: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing ghc-hakyll-3.2.0.10-1.fc15' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16208/ghc-hakyll-3.2.0.10-1.fc15 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 529441] Review Request: pdfbox - Java PDF 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=529441 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(akurtako@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2011-11-21 18:54:13 EST --- Okay, should be good to go again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751917] Review Request: ghc-zlib-enum - Enumerator interface for zlib compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751917 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||ghc-zlib-enum -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736801] Review Request: pure-gen - A Pure C bindings generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736801 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(michel+fdr@sylves ||tre.me) --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2011-11-21 20:25:28 EST --- Michel, I assume you still want this in Fedora? :) If you don't have time then I may import and build it by next week so we don't lose this effort here... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751917] Review Request: ghc-zlib-enum - Enumerator interface for zlib compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751917 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-21 20:32:50 EST --- ghc-zlib-enum-0.2.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-zlib-enum-0.2.1-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
