[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 --- Comment #1 from Kushal Das 2011-11-30 03:20:16 EST --- Koji scratch build failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3552360 I guess you will need pam-devel as BR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750591] Review Request: uhd - universal HW driver for Ettus Research products (i.e. HW for gnuradio)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750591 --- Comment #1 from Jan Kaluža 2011-11-30 03:41:20 EST --- [!] rpmplint is silent uhd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuradio -> gnu radio, gnu-radio, radiogram uhd.x86_64: W: no-documentation uhd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation uhd-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uhd_find_devices uhd-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uhd_usrp_probe 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. It looks they call it "GNU Radio" officialy. It's not big problem, but it fixes the warning imho. For no-documentation, check "License file is present..." below. uhd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuradio -> gnu radio, gnu-radio, radiogram uhd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: uhd-3.3.0.tar.gz That's OK, since upstream doesn't provide useful tarball. [YES] Package meets naming guidelines. [YES] Package meets packaging guidelines. [YES] Spec file matches base package name. [NO] License file is present, matching with spec file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text There's license file installed in -doc subpackage, so I presume it could be installed also in the main uhd package according to guidelines. [YES] Licensing Guidelines are met. [YES] Spec file is legible and in American English. [YES] Sources match upstream. You should use tag instead of revision hash to make it clearer you're using proper version. Just replace git hash with release_003_003_000. You can list all tags using "git tag". [YES] Package builds OK. [YES] BuildRequires are correct. [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. [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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758223] Review Request: kaccessible - An accessibility bridge 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=758223 Radek Novacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rnova...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rnova...@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 758223] Review Request: kaccessible - An accessibility bridge 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=758223 Radek Novacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Radek Novacek 2011-11-30 03:55:34 EST --- Name: ok License: ok Source: ok BRs/Reqs: ok Macros used consistently: ok ldconfig: NA Desktop file validations: NA Locales: NA Docs: ok Devel: NA Files: ok Build: ok rpmlint: no need to fix kaccessible-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Runtime -> Run time, Run-time, Rudiment kaccessible-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Runtime -> Run time, Run-time, Rudiment kaccessible-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation No issues found, setting 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 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #14 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-30 04:05:56 EST --- Here is a new version with an increased release number Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/nagios-plugins-bdii.spec SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/nagios-plugins-bdii-1.0.12-2.el5.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 752829] Review Request: glue-validator - A validation framework for GLUE 2.0 information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752829 --- Comment #13 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-30 04:07:29 EST --- Here is a new version with and increased release number. Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/glue-validator.spec SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/glue-validator-1.0.0-2.el5.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 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997
Kushal Das changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Kushal Das 2011-11-30 04:23:03 EST ---
Ok, that seems to be the boost issue on rawhide.
So,
[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
pam_mapi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam -> map, Pam, pan
pam_mapi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mapi -> map, maps,
magi
pam_mapi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone,
cons
pam_mapi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smtp -> smut
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
$
[ 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.
[ 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.
-> Already pinged upstream in comment #1 for future releases
[ 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
-> dcc2c675a25e8884da6aec7cd0e1fb30 pam_mapi-0.1.0.tar.gz
-> dcc2c675a25e8884da6aec7cd0e1fb30 pam_mapi-0.1.0.tar.gz.1
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec
in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a
bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed
in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] 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. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[ N/A ] 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. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations).
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %d
[Bug 727672] Review Request: metasploit-4.0 - The Metasploit Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727672 Juan Orti Alcaine changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.orti.alca...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Juan Orti Alcaine 2011-11-30 04:27:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Sorry about that I recently moved Sever. > > Updated Links : > > Spec URL: http://affix.me/packaging/metasploit.spec > SRPM URL: http://affix.me/packaging/metasploit-4.0-1.src.rpm I get Forbidden at that URL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752829] Review Request: glue-validator - A validation framework for GLUE 2.0 information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752829 --- Comment #14 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2011-11-30 04:33:54 EST --- Here is a link to the mock build. https://koji.afroditi.hellasgrid.gr/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23873 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 05:23:15 EST --- python-sqlalchemy0.7-0.7.3-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sqlalchemy0.7-0.7.3-4.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Bug 755065 depends on bug 755139, which changed state. Bug 755139 Summary: Review Request: python-nose1.1 - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755139 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-11-30 05:29:01 EST --- Stefan, are you OK with the current split to Equalizer, Collage, Sequel and appropriate devel subpackages? Any comments or suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 05:52:30 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 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 #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 05:54:52 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 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #3 from Stefan Eilemann 2011-11-30 06:00:29 EST --- Yes, I'm ok with this. They already have the appropriate CMake components set. I guess the applications then are a package of their own, or do you want to have components for them as well? I want to also split the repositories accordingly, but this is a non-trivial amount of work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #4 from Stefan Eilemann 2011-11-30 06:08:52 EST --- I would appreciate if you do this work on github, so I can easily merge it back. For the 1.0 branch I would no invest too much time. We're trying to converge to 1.2 right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-11-30 06:14:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > I would appreciate if you do this work on github, so I can easily merge it > back. For the 1.0 branch I would no invest too much time. We're trying to > converge to 1.2 right now. Currently we have 4 patches, I will try to push them through github. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-11-30 06:13:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) I think we have no problem with the current upstream state. Currently we create the following RPMs: Collage Collage-devel Sequel Sequel-devel Equalizer Equalizer-devel All are build from the Equalizer SRPM. Please check if the deps in the spec file are OK, e.g. Equalizer depends on Collage..., etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758223] Review Request: kaccessible - An accessibility bridge 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=758223 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-11-30 07:13:41 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kaccessible Short Description: An accessibility bridge plugin Owners: jreznik rdieter kkofler than ltinkl rnovacek Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 Robert Scheck changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck 2011-11-30 07:18:08 EST --- Kushal, thank you very much for your review! I'm already working with upstream to get the boost issue solved on one or the other way. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pam_mapi Short Description: PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server Owners: robert Branches: el4 el5 el6 f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750591] Review Request: uhd - universal HW driver for Ettus Research products (i.e. HW for gnuradio)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750591 --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-11-30 07:54:55 EST --- Thanks for the review. Hopefully I fixed it all: Spec URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/gnuradio/uhd.spec SRPM URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/gnuradio/uhd-3.3.0-2.fc14.src.rpm > It looks they call it "GNU Radio" officialy. It's not big problem, but it > fixes the warning imho. > I took the description from the upstream, but no problem to fix. > There's license file installed in -doc subpackage, so I presume it could be installed also in the main uhd package according to guidelines. > Basic docs (including license) were moved to base package. > You should use tag instead of revision hash to make it clearer you're using proper version. Just replace git hash with release_003_003_000. > Just comments, but fixed. I also removed defattrs, switched to macros style instead of variables and I moved the binaries to base backage from devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-11-30 08:13:43 EST --- Is the BuildRequires: python3-setuptools needed? It seems to build OK without it. Also consider packaging demo script from examples (its shebang would probably require tweaking). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 08:27:54 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 758223] Review Request: kaccessible - An accessibility bridge 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=758223 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 08:30:02 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 758223] Review Request: kaccessible - An accessibility bridge 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=758223 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-11-30 09:09:41 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 746438] Review Request: rubygem-cairo - Ruby bindings for cairo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746438 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2011-11-30 09:07:28 EST --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-cairo/rubygem-cairo.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-cairo/rubygem-cairo-1.10.2-1.fc.src.rpm * Wed Nov 30 2011 Mamoru Tasaka - 1.10.2-1 - 1.10.2 - Make dependency for pkg-config be development only again - Change the license tag to "GPLv2 or Ruby" - Remove defattr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755615
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata 2011-11-30 09:36:50 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: 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.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/755615/Pod-Perldoc-3.15_10.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 46af7e5f7308307f13053c0d446aaefd
MD5SUM upstream package : 46af7e5f7308307f13053c0d446aaefd
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
1. Drop perl(Config) BR
2. The Source0 URL is invalid; v3.15_10 was uploaded by BDFOY
3. Filter out underspecified perl(Pod::Simple::RTF) dependency
Non of those is an actual showstopper. Approving.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for t
[Bug 751564] Review Request: aeolus-audrey-agent - The Aeolus Audrey Startup Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751564 Joe VLcek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: The Aeolus |Review Request: |Audrey Startup Agent|aeolus-audrey-agent - The ||Aeolus Audrey Startup Agent Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #30 from Joe VLcek 2011-11-30 09:42:27 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aeolus-audrey-agent Short Description: The Aeolus Audrey Startup Agent Owners: joev Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jrez...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@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 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854 --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-11-30 10:18:37 EST --- desktop-file-validate belongs to %install section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-11-30 10:17:28
EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: 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.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint kcalc-debuginfo-4.7.80-1.fc17.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint kcalc-4.7.80-1.fc17.src.rpm
kcalc.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.7.80/src/kcalc-4.7.80.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint kcalc-4.7.80-1.fc17.i686.rpm
kcalc.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit4_kcalc.so
libkdeinit4_kcalc.so
kcalc.i686: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/applications/kde4/kcalc.desktop
> kcalc.desktop has exec acls
kcalc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kcalc
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/jreznik/test/757854/kcalc-4.7.80.tar.bz2 :
MD5SUM this package : 13206383afdbfcabde4c1e47ce2764c0
MD5SUM upstream package : 13206383afdbfcabde4c1e47ce2764c0
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD 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.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint kcalc-debuginfo-4.7.80-1.fc17.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint kcalc-4.7.80-1.fc17.src.rpm
kcalc.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.7.80/src/kcalc-4.7.80.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> Just fix to unstable for
[Bug 751564] Review Request: aeolus-audrey-agent - The Aeolus Audrey Startup Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751564 --- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 10:16:00 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 736262] Review Request: proxyfuzz - man-in-the-middle non-deterministic network fuzzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736262
Michal Nowak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(mno...@redhat.com |
|) |
--- Comment #7 from Michal Nowak 2011-11-30 10:19:44 EST ---
Sorry for the delay.
> Version: 0.1
> Release: 20110923%{?dist}
Since the script does not contain any information regarding it's version I
suggest to set the RPM version to 20110923 and release to 1 (we do it this way
for fonts e.g. kurdit-unikurd-web-fonts package).
Rest looks good to me. When fixed I do formal 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 756179] Review Request: aeolus-configserver - The Aeolus Audrey Config Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756179 Joe VLcek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Joe VLcek 2011-11-30 10:21:31 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aeolus-configserver Short Description: The Aeolus Audrey Config Server Owners: joev Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter 2011-11-30 10:22:49 EST --- %check for -validate is fine (I'm starting to use that everywhere), I'll take it as my job to update the relevant packaging guideline -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758448] Review Request: perl-Config-Grammar (for EPEL) - Grammar-based, user-friendly config parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758448 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2011-11-30 10:29:08 EST --- Mick isn't yet in packager so it does pose a problem as to how he's going to show his knowledge to become an epel maintainer. A new review request is suboptimal but I don't know of a better way either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758448] Review Request: perl-Config-Grammar (for EPEL) - Grammar-based, user-friendly config parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758448 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2011-11-30 10:29:08 EST --- Mick isn't yet in packager so it does pose a problem as to how he's going to show his knowledge to become an epel maintainer. A new review request is suboptimal but I don't know of a better way either. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter 2011-11-30 10:27:25 EST --- done, see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=262319 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-11-30 10:32:41 EST --- Thanks Rex, I thought it's ok but re-checked with old Guidelines to prove me I was wrong :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758734] New: Review Request: fatrat-subtitlesearch - FatRat plugin enabling OpenSubtitles.org and Sublight.si integration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fatrat-subtitlesearch - FatRat plugin enabling OpenSubtitles.org and Sublight.si integration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758734 Summary: Review Request: fatrat-subtitlesearch - FatRat plugin enabling OpenSubtitles.org and Sublight.si integration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jvce...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Spec URL: http://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/fatrat-subtitlesearch/1.2.0_beta1-1/fatrat-subtitlesearch.spec SRPM URL: http://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/fatrat-subtitlesearch/fatrat-subtitlesearch-1.2.0_beta1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: FatRat is download manager written in C++ and build on top of the Qt4 library. It is rich in features and is continuously extended. This package contains plugin for integration with OpenSubtitles.org and Sublight.si (easy subtitle searching). $ rpmlint fatrat-subtitlesearch.spec fatrat-subtitlesearch-1.2.0_beta1-1.fc17.src.rpm fatrat-subtitlesearch-1.2.0_beta1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm fatrat-subtitlesearch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) si -> chi, sigh, see fatrat-subtitlesearch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US si -> chi, sigh, see fatrat-subtitlesearch.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) si -> chi, sigh, see fatrat-subtitlesearch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US si -> chi, sigh, see 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings (New fatrat from F17 is required for this package to be built.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745510] Review Request: vdsm - Virtual Desktop Server Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745510 Federico Simoncelli changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #19 from Federico Simoncelli 2011-11-30 10:54:40 EST --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/fsimonce/vdsm/vdsm.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/fsimonce/vdsm/vdsm-4.9.1-1.git6ee166c.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 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Reznik 2011-11-30 10:56:54 EST --- We decided (at #fedora-kde) to go with some macro magic to do stable/unstable source url in a better way - so for now, I'll approve it with incorrect url (source code checked manually). As I think it's not a blocker and we have this problem in modules already in git :( So systematic solution should work. 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 756179] Review Request: aeolus-configserver - The Aeolus Audrey Config Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756179 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 11:09:24 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 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-11-30 11:08:19 EST --- Stefan, for your convenience there is: https://github.com/yarda/Equalizer/tree/yardas You can merge upstream from there. Currently there are three patches that I think could be useful for you. The last one, that I didn't push there, disables -Werror, because there were some warnings and the build fails on Fedora. Correctly fixing these would probably require more effort, thus I didn't do it for now and I will go without -Werror in Fedora for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #8 from Stefan Eilemann 2011-11-30 11:19:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > Stefan, for your convenience there is: > https://github.com/yarda/Equalizer/tree/yardas Seen and merged. > The last one, that I didn't push there, disables > -Werror, because there were some warnings and the build fails on Fedora. When EQUALIZER_RELEASE is set (which it will be in released versions), -Werror is not used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757854] Review Request: kcalc - Scientific calculator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757854
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler 2011-11-30 11:31:11
EST ---
Try this:
%global revision %(echo %{version} | sed 's/^.*\.\([^.]*\)$/\1/g')
%if %{revision} >= 50
%global stable unstable
%else
%global stable stable
%endif
Source0:
ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/%{stable}/%{version}/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755615 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar 2011-11-30 11:47:59 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Pod-Perldoc Short Description: Look up Perl documentation in Pod format 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 755615] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755615 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 11:54:46 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 758448] Review Request: perl-Config-Grammar (for EPEL) - Grammar-based, user-friendly config parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758448 --- Comment #3 from Mick Weiss 2011-11-30 11:57:30 EST --- I posted this bug because two people from #fedora-devel (or #epel, I forget) pointed me here and specifically told me to open a bug. This can't be the first time that this has happened (package not in EPEL, maintainer doesn't want anything to do w/ EPEL, and a nm wants to see those packages in EPEL). What is the recommended procedure? Can someone write something in the wiki or point me to where it is documented? If the recommended thing is to just stay away and let an experienced EPEL packager handle this - then by all means. Please do that. I'm not as interested in becoming a packager as I am just getting these things in EPEL (smokeping and these two cpan module dependencies). If that can't be done, then that is fine (I have packages built for my platform). I just figured that someone else might benefit. I do feel a bit lost - what would you like me to do exactly? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758448] Review Request: perl-Config-Grammar (for EPEL) - Grammar-based, user-friendly config parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758448 --- Comment #3 from Mick Weiss 2011-11-30 11:57:30 EST --- I posted this bug because two people from #fedora-devel (or #epel, I forget) pointed me here and specifically told me to open a bug. This can't be the first time that this has happened (package not in EPEL, maintainer doesn't want anything to do w/ EPEL, and a nm wants to see those packages in EPEL). What is the recommended procedure? Can someone write something in the wiki or point me to where it is documented? If the recommended thing is to just stay away and let an experienced EPEL packager handle this - then by all means. Please do that. I'm not as interested in becoming a packager as I am just getting these things in EPEL (smokeping and these two cpan module dependencies). If that can't be done, then that is fine (I have packages built for my platform). I just figured that someone else might benefit. I do feel a bit lost - what would you like me to do exactly? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755615 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.15.10-1. ||fc17 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-11-30 12:32:04 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2011-11-30 12:32:04 EST --- Thank you for the review and the repository. I've applied all changes requested by reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736015 --- Comment #8 from Jeff Layton 2011-11-30 12:55:12 EST --- Updated the package to 0.7.3 and respun the "contrib" patch to better match what will be in 0.8.0: http://fedorapeople.org/~jlayton/fedfs-utils/0.7.3-1/ -- 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 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736015 Jeff Layton 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 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736015 Jeff Layton 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 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736015 --- Comment #9 from Jeff Layton 2011-11-30 13:14:57 EST --- For the record, the only rpmlint warnings left are these: fedfs-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace -> name space, name-space, names pace fedfs-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automounted -> auto mounted, auto-mounted, automated ...and I think those are just gaps in the dictionary. Also, I've left it as 5 packages for now. If it's really a problem to keep it that granular, then let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|478388(UDAV)| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 689488] Review Request: vcftools - VCF file manipulation 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=689488 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||vcftools -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 478388] Review Request: UDAV - data visualisation program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478388 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Blocks|505154(FE-SCITECH) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Alias||UDAV --- Comment #19 from Alex Lancaster 2011-11-30 14:04:16 EST --- Review seems stalled. Will wait a month as per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews before closing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||717473(SeqAn) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 689870] Review Request: tabix - Generic indexer for TAB-delimited genome position 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=689870 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||tabix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717473] Review Request: SeqAn - Biological sequence analysis 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=717473 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Blocks||505154(FE-SCITECH) Alias||SeqAn -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||478388(UDAV) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 478388] Review Request: UDAV - data visualisation program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478388 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505154(FE-SCITECH) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 708402] Review Request: tophat - A spliced read mapper for RNA-Seq
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708402 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||tophat -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744334] Review Request: netcdf-fortran - Fortran libraries for netCDF-4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744334 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||netcdf-fortran -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739398] Review Request: openblas - An optimized BLAS library based on GotoBLAS2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||openblas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694998] Review Request: cufflinks - RNA-Seq transcript assembly, differential expression/regulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694998 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||cufflinks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742610] Review Request: netcdf-cxx - Legacy netCDF C++ 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=742610 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||netcdf-cxx -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 742605] Review Request: netcdf-cxx4 - netCDF-4 C++ 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=742605 Alex Lancaster changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@users.sourceforge.net Alias||netcdf-cxx4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755890] Review Request: Snap A modular cross-platform system backup/restore utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755890 --- Comment #10 from Mo Morsi 2011-11-30 14:41:16 EST --- ping? Do either of you guys happen to be a sponsored packager that can give the official review? Would you mind doing so, so that we can get this in. Appreciate 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 756448] Review Request: mingw-ftplib - MinGW package for ftplib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756448 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-11-30 14:53:38 EST --- - Please change the %define __strip and %define __objdump to use %global - Please bump the BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem to >= 68 (that is the version which introduced the RPM 4.9 dependency extraction magic) - The 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT can be removed from the %install section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726895] Review Request: mingw-harfbuzz - MinGW Windows HarfBuzz 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=726895 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-11-30 15:14:51 EST --- Kalev, do you know if this package is intended to be used by pango and/or qt in the future? I think we should try to avoid introducing more dependency bloat in the Gtk and Qt toolchain so we need to be careful with such changes. I would like to prevent introducing fontconfig and freetype as dependencies for the Gtk and Qt toolchain so perhaps we could better eliminate the freetype (and thus fontconfig) as dependency from this package (unless it brings a significant benefit for the win32 target of course). A quick look at the configure.ac file inside this package indicates that freetype (and cairo-ft) are optional. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751564] Review Request: aeolus-audrey-agent - The Aeolus Audrey Startup Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751564 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751564] Review Request: aeolus-audrey-agent - The Aeolus Audrey Startup Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751564 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 15:40:13 EST --- aeolus-audrey-agent-0.4.0-9.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aeolus-audrey-agent-0.4.0-9.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 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736015
Eric Sandeen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||esand...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|esand...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Eric Sandeen 2011-11-30 15:51:41 EST
---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint fedfs-utils*.rpm
fedfs-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace -> name
space, name-space, names pace
fedfs-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automounted -> auto
mounted, auto-mounted, automobiled
fedfs-utils-admin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace ->
name space, name-space, names pace
fedfs-utils-admin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automounted
-> auto mounted, auto-mounted, automobiled
fedfs-utils-client.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace ->
name space, name-space, names pace
fedfs-utils-client.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automounted
-> auto mounted, auto-mounted, automobiled
fedfs-utils-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace ->
name space, name-space, names pace
fedfs-utils-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automounted
-> auto mounted, auto-mounted, automobiled
fedfs-utils-nsdbparams.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
namespace -> name space, name-space, names pace
fedfs-utils-nsdbparams.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
automounted -> auto mounted, auto-mounted, automobiled
fedfs-utils-server.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace ->
name space, name-space, names pace
fedfs-utils-server.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automounted
-> auto mounted, auto-mounted, automobiled
fedfs-utils-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resolve-junction
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
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 (fedfs-utils.spec)
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
OK (License:GPLv2)
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK (not v2+)
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 (%doc COPYING README ChangeLog)
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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
wget
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/fedfs-utils/dist/files/fedfs-utils-0.7.3.tar.gz
dad5ceedfb05974837673664de6b158a fedfs-utils-0.7.3.tar.gz
dad5ceedfb05974837673664de6b158a fedfs-utils-0.7.3.tar.gz.1
OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3554224)
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK (all primary architectures built)
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK (koji build was fine)
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK (no locales)
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.
OK (no libraries)
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK (no libraries)
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
[Bug 727473] Review Request: mingw-dbus-glib - MinGW Windows GLib bindings for D-Bus
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727473
--- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-11-30
16:08:29 EST ---
Created attachment 538817
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=538817
Don't give a fatal error when the abstract socket checks can't be executed
(because of cross-compiling)
Could you please update to version 0.98 (the latest released version) ?
While you're at it, could you also please add the attached patch? It makes the
%{_mingw32_cache} hack which you've applied obsolete, so that can be dropped as
well.
The patch is basically a copy of the configure.ac from the dbus package:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/dbus/dbus/tree/configure.ac#n796 (I wasn't able to
find the exact commit so quick in git, but as you can see it's the exact same
code as used in dbus-glib)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756179] Review Request: aeolus-configserver - The Aeolus Audrey Config Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756179 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 16:44:38 EST --- aeolus-configserver-0.4.1-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aeolus-configserver-0.4.1-4.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756179] Review Request: aeolus-configserver - The Aeolus Audrey Config Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756179 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754437] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754437
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-11-30
16:43:25 EST ---
Taking for review
- The latest upstream version is 0.0.2. Please update to this version
- Please replace the %define's at the top of the .spec file with these:
%global __strip %{_mingw32_strip}
%global __objdump %{_mingw32_objdump}
%define __debug_install_post %{_mingw32_debug_install_post}
- Please add the line %{?_mingw32_debug_package} between the last %description
and the %prep lines. This is required for automatic debuginfo extraction
- The BuildRoot tag, the 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' from the %install section,
the entire %clean section and the various %defattr lines can all be dropped as
they're not needed any more with recent RPM
Next to this I would also like to recommend you to name the package
'mingw-libvirt-glib' (which provides the 'mingw32-libvirt-glib' and other
subpackages). We recommend this for new packages so they can easily be adjusted
to have mingw-w64 support without requiring a full re-review. Support for
mingw-w64 is a planned feature for Fedora 17, but is currently stalled because
we're still waiting for legal approval:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-November/001754.html
An example of a package which uses this new naming scheme can be found at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW#Example_Specfile
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756776] Review Request: mingw32-libosinfo - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=756776 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-11-30 16:49:04 EST --- Taking for review. The comments I already mentioned in your mingw32-libvirt-glib review request (bug 754437) also apply for this package. Please resolve these first and after you've published a revised spec file I'll continue with the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736015 Jeff Layton changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Jeff Layton 2011-11-30 17:08:21 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedfs-utils Short Description: Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS Owners: jlayton 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 749132] Review Request: dpm-dsi - Disk Pool Manager (DPM) plugin to GridFTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749132 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dpm-dsi-1.8.2-5.fc16|dpm-dsi-1.8.2-5.el5 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:36:48 EST --- dpm-dsi-1.8.2-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749132] Review Request: dpm-dsi - Disk Pool Manager (DPM) plugin to GridFTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749132 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dpm-dsi-1.8.2-5.el5 |dpm-dsi-1.8.2-5.el6 --- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:36:59 EST --- dpm-dsi-1.8.2-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:35:22 EST --- Package python-sqlalchemy0.7-0.7.3-4.el6: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing python-sqlalchemy0.7-0.7.3-4.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-5121/python-sqlalchemy0.7-0.7.3-4.el6 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 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:58:59 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:58:50 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:59:05 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:58:53 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.fc16 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:58:54 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757997] Review Request: pam_mapi - PAM module for authentication via MAPI against a Zarafa server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757997 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 17:58:53 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.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 664390] Review Request: sams - SQUID Account Management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664390 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen 2011-11-30 18:22:47 EST --- ping... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736015] Review Request: fedfs-utils - Utilities for mounting and managing FedFS domains
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736015 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-30 18:26:34 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 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 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen 2011-11-30 18:38:29 EST --- All points above look to be fixed, thanks. The SPEC file just does a unpack and copy things in to the correct place so the review is pretty simple. A build and rpmlint shows ./mcollective.spec:179: E: files-attr-not-set if you really plan to target EPEL5 this should be added back. More significant: mcollective.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mcollective/server.cfg 0440L mcollective.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/mcollective mcollective.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/mcollective mcollective-client.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mcollective/rpc-help.erb Checking quickly all of these they can and should be fixed. This is other wise looking fairly good, licensing all looks fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725292] Review Request: s3fs - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 --- Comment #13 from Boyd 2011-11-30 19:03:46 EST --- I have not been able to get the the fuse-s3fs package from either Fedora 16 or rawhide to work. It seems to authenticate, but a simple command to create a bucket or to mount an existing bucket fails. Since there is little in the way of documentation other than the man page, and no logging that I can see, I am not sure what the problem is and have hesitated to file a bug. Hopefully this naming will be resolved and we can get at least one of these packages that works! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #15 from Steve Traylen 2011-11-30 19:08:01 EST --- 1) Changelog does not match release, and the spec file has changed with no corresponding changelog entry reflecting the change made in the .spec file. Please run rpmlint at every release: $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/nagios-plugins-bdii-* nagios-plugins-bdii.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.12-1.el6 ['1.0.12-2.el6', '1.0.12-2'] nagios-plugins-bdii.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2) Can you take a look at or report upstream the compilation warnings, not a requirement but worth following up. rc/check_bdii_entries.c: In function 'main': src/check_bdii_entries.c:168: warning: implicit declaration of function 'ldap_init' src/check_bdii_entries.c:168: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast 2) The %description is rather terse and includes BDII which is not described anywhere and is not obvious to people in general I believe. 3) The tar ball in the .src.rpm does not match the instructions to create 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 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 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|steve.tray...@cern.ch |extras...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754137] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bdii - Nagios Probe for the BDII
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754137 --- Comment #16 from Steve Traylen 2011-11-30 19:11:49 EST --- Can you at least request that upstream adds a LICENSE file to their tar ball please. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text 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 691195] Review Request: wmnet - Network monitoring dockapp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691195
Mohamed El Morabity changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-11-30
19:15:06 EST ---
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
wmnet.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dockapp -> dock app, dock-app,
paddock
wmnet.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found de
wmnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rx -> Rx, ex, r
wmnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tx -> TX, t, x
wmnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xload -> load, x load
wmnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US et -> ET, wt, rt
wmnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US al -> AL, la, Al
wmnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l de programm -> program
wmnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dockapp -> dock app,
dock-app, paddock
wmnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rx -> Rx, ex, r
wmnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tx -> TX, t, x
wmnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xload -> load, x load
wmnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US et -> ET, wt, rt
wmnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US al -> AL, la, Al
wmnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l de programm -> program
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
These warnings can be safely ignored.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
MD5 sum=64e74c37c0cb5fd4fb81cfb0f5c4a264 -> OK
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
->Exception validated here
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
[Bug 718502] Review Request: Temperature.app - Window Maker applet which fetches local temperature information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718502 --- Comment #6 from Mohamed El Morabity 2011-11-30 19:17:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Well, there's another pool for unmaintained dockapps at > http://repo.or.cz/w/dockapps.git, perhaps I should use it. It also includes > some bugfixes, seems to be the best way for me. That seems good to me too. That's a guarantee to have maintained sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757484] Review Request: perl-Router-Simple - Simple HTTP router
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757484 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-30 19:20:46 EST --- perl-Router-Simple-0.09-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Router-Simple-0.09-1.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
