[Bug 715180] Review Request: FreeMat - A free environment for rapid engineering, scientific prototyping and data processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715180 akshay vyas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akshayvya...@gmail.com --- Comment #30 from akshay vyas 2011-12-18 02:51:30 EST --- f16 faces the problem with freemat well freemat is installed but not shown in menu list although you can run it from /usr/bin ./freemat it will run what could be the possible reason of missing menu list entry -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 715180] Review Request: FreeMat - A free environment for rapid engineering, scientific prototyping and data processing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715180 --- Comment #31 from akshay vyas 2011-12-18 02:52:04 EST --- f16 faces the problem with freemat well freemat is installed but not shown in menu list although you can run it from /usr/bin ./freemat it will run what could be the possible reason for missing menu list entry -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768700] New: Review Request: sugar-flip - Simple strategic game of flipping coins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sugar-flip - Simple strategic game of flipping coins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768700 Summary: Review Request: sugar-flip - Simple strategic game of flipping coins Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: callka...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-flip/sugar-flip.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-flip/sugar-flip-1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Hi I just finished packaging sugar-flip. I highly appreciate a review. sugar-flip is a simple strategic game for sugar learning environment where you have to flip coins until they are all heads up. Each time you win, the challenge gets more difficult. You can play flips with your friends over the net. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855
--- Comment #10 from Christoph Wickert 2011-12-17
18:05:23 EST ---
When using install oc cp, please preserve timstamps, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
You are still compressing the manpage. Please don't, rpmbuild will do it
automatically. And don't use an extension (gz) in the %files section. We might
switch to bz or xz compression and then your spec will fail. Just
%{_mandir}/man8/sslh.8.* or %{_mandir}/man8/* is fine.
Please use the macro %{_unitdir} instead of hardcoding /lib/systemd/system.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 --- Comment #9 from Christoph Wickert 2011-12-17 18:00:21 EST --- You are not allowed to change /etc/rsyslog.conf. No package must ever modify files that belong to other packages. Instead, add the configuration to /etc/rsyslog.d/sslh.conf (to be created by your package). I think this package could be very useful in EPEL, too. If you want to maintain it for RHEL as well, consider adding support for both SysVinit and systemd through conditionals. For more info see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Conditionals -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 --- Comment #8 from Christian Vanguers 2011-12-17 17:22:25 EST --- @(In reply to comment #6) > Cool you have packaged this, I was planning to do it but I didn't find the > time. > > Is there a reason you are not using the included Makefile. I'd rather patch it > if necessary (e.g. to not compress the manpage) and use it. You're right, I should use the makefile, but as said above, it needs some changes. I'll do it asap. Regards, Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 --- Comment #7 from Christian Vanguers 2011-12-17 17:18:24 EST --- Hi! I've reworked the package and added the support for systemd. I've focused on the remarks from Aleksandra, Volker and Christoph, but I want to point out that I used again the install commands in the %install part of the spec because the Makefile needs some changes. In order to have this package available asap for the FC16 users, I did it this way. I'll focus on reworking the Makefile in collaboration with the developer of sslh. SPEC URL: http://wangee.opsyx.com/sslh.spec SRPM URL: http://wangee.opsyx.com/sslh-1.10-2.fc16.src.rpm As Volker did for the first package, I ran rpmlint and debug rpm is giving a better report : [builder@hellboy i686]$ rpmlint sslh-debuginfo-1.10-2.fc16.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thanks for your support guys :) Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768100] Review Request: trac-mastertickets-plugin - Add support for ticket dependencies to Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768100 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2011-12-17 14:26:55 EST --- Package trac-mastertickets-plugin-3.0.2-2.20111215.git43a7537.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 trac-mastertickets-plugin-3.0.2-2.20111215.git43a7537.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-5267/trac-mastertickets-plugin-3.0.2-2.20111215.git43a7537.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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el6|pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el5 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2011-12-17 14:26:46 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.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 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 Fixed In Version|pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.fc16 |pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el6 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2011-12-17 14:26:38 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.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 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 Fixed In Version|pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el5|pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el4 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2011-12-17 14:27:11 EST --- pam_mapi-0.1.0-1.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 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 768662] New: Review Request: DWFToolkit - DWF Toolkit provides APIs for reading and writing 3D DWF from any application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: DWFToolkit - DWF Toolkit provides APIs for reading and writing 3D DWF from any application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768662 Summary: Review Request: DWFToolkit - DWF Toolkit provides APIs for reading and writing 3D DWF from any application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kwiz...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/review/DWFToolkit.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/review/DWFToolkit-7.7-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: DWF Toolkit provides APIs for reading and writing 3D DWF from any application This package is known to create a library with an unusual SONAME. I think that shouldn't be corrected in the package because it would create a incompatibility with a SONAME deviating from upstream. This is wip since it doesn't build in f16 (should work in f14). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759747] Review Request: sk1libs - Universal vector graphics translator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759747 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2011-12-17 13:09:23 EST --- Volker, thank you. I have address all mentioned issues except bundled libs. For that upstream bug filed: http://code.google.com/p/sk1/issues/detail?id=30 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673839] Review Request: boost141 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673839 Denis Arnaud changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=768657 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673839] Review Request: boost141 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673839 Denis Arnaud changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=768656 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@matbooth.co.uk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Mat Booth 2011-12-17 12:42:49 EST --- Yes, I am fine with this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768100] Review Request: trac-mastertickets-plugin - Add support for ticket dependencies to Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768100 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2011-12-17 12:05:29 EST --- trac-mastertickets-plugin-3.0.2-2.20111215.git43a7537.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trac-mastertickets-plugin-3.0.2-2.20111215.git43a7537.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 768100] Review Request: trac-mastertickets-plugin - Add support for ticket dependencies to Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768100 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-12-17 12:05:18 EST --- trac-mastertickets-plugin-3.0.2-2.20111215.git43a7537.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trac-mastertickets-plugin-3.0.2-2.20111215.git43a7537.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 768100] Review Request: trac-mastertickets-plugin - Add support for ticket dependencies to Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768100 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 724942] Review Request: libmodbus - A Modbus library written in C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724942 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(stephane.raimbaul ||t...@gmail.com) --- Comment #25 from Peter Lemenkov 2011-12-17 11:04:19 EST --- No packages for F-15 and F-16 yet. Stéphane, is it intentional? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710904] Review Request: octave-communications - Communications for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710904 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Thomas Sailer 2011-12-17 10:08:41 EST --- Thanks a lot! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: octave-communications Short Description: Communications for Octave Owners: sailer Branches: f15 f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666311] Review Request: fritzing - Intuitive EDA platform from prototype to product
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666311 --- Comment #18 from Ed Marshall 2011-12-17 09:49:19 EST --- Just saw your note over on Trac, good point, didn't realize that quazip and qtlockedfile weren't available in EPEL (have been pretty focused on Fedora for this, honestly). I'll send a note to their respective maintainers (looks like kwizart and oget?) and see how much trouble it would be to package them for EPEL (I'm not sure how bound to the version of Qt they are, for example). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693370] Review Request: elementary-gtk-theme - elementary GTK theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693370
--- Comment #11 from Christoph Wickert 2011-12-17
09:18:06 EST ---
REVIEW FOR e99fff15202db7198f75853065b0130a elementary-2.1-3.fc15.src.rpm
MUST items
FIX - MUST: rpmlint output:
elementary.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Elementary
elementary.src: W: no-%build-section
elementary-gnome-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metacity
-> meta city, meta-city, mendacity
elementary-gnome-theme.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Desktop theme for
GNOME, includes elementary icon theme and elementary metacity (window manager).
elementary-gnome-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation
elementary-gtk-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation
elementary-gtk-theme.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package
/usr/share/themes/elementary/gtk-2.0/Apps/panel.rc.~1~
elementary-gtk-theme.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package
/usr/share/themes/elementary/gtk-2.0/Apps/postler.rc.~1~
elementary-gtk-theme.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package
/usr/share/themes/elementary/gtk-2.0/gtkrc.~1~
elementary-gtk-theme.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package
/usr/share/themes/elementary/gtk-2.0/Apps/panel-dark.rc.~1~
elementary-metacity-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation
elementary-xfwm4-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 7 warnings.
- Consider adding an empty %build to fix the no-%build-section warning
- Ignore spelling-error warnings
- make sure to insert line breaks after 79 characters to get rid of the
description-line-too-long error
- remove backup files (you could to this in %build, then it has at least a
purpose ;) )
- include documentation. The rule of thumb is AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS and COPYING
and need to be installed for every independent package. You can skip them if
they are already installed through a dependency.
OK - MUST: package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines, but I'd
rather prefer the package to be named elementary-theme
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package in the format %{name}.spec
FIX - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Preserve the timestamps
when using install or cp, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
OK - MUST: package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2
FIX - MUST: License field in the package spec file does not match the actual
license. According to the AUTHORS file this it's GPLv2 (only), not "or any
later version".
FIX - MUST: source package includes the text of the license in its own file and
that file is included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec file is written in American English
OK - MUST: spec file for the package is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL by
md5 f685d659c72271944ca2e76d638ca2ed
OK - MUST: package successfully compiles and builds 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
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
N/A - MUST: spec file handles locales properly using %find_lang
N/A - MUST: package (or subpackage) stores shared library files in the dynamic
linker's default paths and call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK - MUST: package does not bundle copies of system libraries
OK - MUST: package is not designed to be relocatable
FIX - MUST: package owns all directories that it creates: You need to own
%{_datadir}/themes/elementary or require a package that owns it. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
OK - MUST: package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
OK - MUST: permissions on files are set properly
FIX - MUST: package does not use macros consistently. You are mixing two
different styles, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: header files are in -devel package
N/A - MUST: static libraries are in -static package
N/A - MUST: library files with a suffix are in -devel package
N/A - MUST: -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
OK - MUST: package does not contain any .la libtool archives
OK - MUST: package does not include a GUI application, no need for a
%{name}.desktop file
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
OK - MUST: all filenames in the package are valid UTF-8
SHOULD items
N/A - SHOULD: source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file
[Bug 666311] Review Request: fritzing - Intuitive EDA platform from prototype to product
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666311 --- Comment #17 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2011-12-17 09:00:09 EST --- Are you planning to release fritzing for EPEL-6(CentOS-6/RHEL-6) too ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert 2011-12-17 08:44:55 EST --- Cool you have packaged this, I was planning to do it but I didn't find the time. Is there a reason you are not using the included Makefile. I'd rather patch it if necessary (e.g. to not compress the manpage) and use 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 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert 2011-12-17 08:40:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > * If you're not out for EPEL 5, you can drop buildroot, clean section and the > rm in the install section, see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag > > * Drop defattr and correct permissions in the install section, if necessary I'd like to point out that there is no need to remove these or the %clean section. It's up to the packager. Personally I'd like to keep them to ensure backwards compatibility with older RPM versions or distributions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767838] Review Request: libclastfm - Unofficial C-API for the Last.fm web service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767838 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert 2011-12-17 08:34:29 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libclastfm Short Description: Unofficial C-API for the Last.fm web service Owners: cwickert 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 710904] Review Request: octave-communications - Communications for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710904 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-12-17 08:25:13 EST --- Very good. This package has been 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 508922] Review Request: system-config-selinux - GUI Code for system-config-selinux, polgen, and lockdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508922 Daniel Walsh changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2011-12-17 07:38:12 --- Comment #47 from Daniel Walsh 2011-12-17 07:38:12 EST --- Well the effort here was never picked up. Since I have never had time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710904] Review Request: octave-communications - Communications for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710904 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Sailer 2011-12-17 07:30:50 EST --- Thanks for the review Jussi! Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-communications.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-communications-1.1.0-2.fc16.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3590036 I've changed the spec file according to your comments. > Also, if you give executable rights to the source files, you don't need to run > chmod in the spec. As you noticed, rpmlint doesn't like that, so I kept the chmod. > Please get rid of the %attr lines, they shouldn't be necessary. Ok, I added chmod statements in the install section and dropped the %attr's. Two .m files are distributed with the executable bit set, so either chmod or %attr is necessary to silence rpmlint. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741494] Review Request: sugar-pukllanapac - A sliding puzzle game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741494 --- Comment #2 from Kalpa Welivitigoda 2011-12-17 05:56:02 EST --- here are the new files, Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-pukllanapac/sugar-pukllanapac.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-pukllanapac/sugar-pukllanapac-8-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710904] Review Request: octave-communications - Communications for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710904
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-12-17 04:55:08
EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Also, if you give executable rights to the source files, you don't need to run
> chmod in the spec.
Scrap this, it will cause an rpmlint warning.
**
rpmlint output:
octave-communications.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-communications.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/packinfo/.autoload
octave-communications.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/packinfo/.autoload
octave-communications.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/@galois/fft.m
octave-communications.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/comms.info
octave-communications.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.
These are expected for Octave packages.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. ~OK
- Please address the issues raised above.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. 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
- License is GPLv2+.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
$ md5sum communications-1.1.0.tar.gz ../SOURCES/communications-1.1.0.tar.gz
1ec83d2757d5aa7d65be4a4c29741eba communications-1.1.0.tar.gz
1ec83d2757d5aa7d65be4a4c29741eba ../SOURCES/communications-1.1.0.tar.gz
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms.
NEEDSWORK
- Add the missing BR.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
- Remove the spurious %attr lines.
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
- Licenses and so on are already installed.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned, architecture dependent dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSWORK
EPEL: Clean section exists. NEEDSWORK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710904] Review Request: octave-communications - Communications for Octave
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710904
--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola 2011-12-17 04:39:59
EST ---
Does not build:
Making dvi comms.dvi
/bin/sh: line 4: texi2dvi: command not found
make: *** [comms.dvi] Error 127
Adding BR /usr/bin/texi2dvi fixes this problem.
**
BuildRequires: octave-devel octave-signal >= 1.0.0 octave-image >= 0.0.0
hdf5-devel
is somewhat complicated. I would prefer the BRs once per line, especially if
you state EVR requirements.
**
Please take a habit of preserving permissions while copying sources, e.g.
cp -p %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} .
Also, if you give executable rights to the source files, you don't need to run
chmod in the spec.
**
You do know that
pushd doc
make
popd
can be written simply as
make -C doc
**
Please get rid of the %attr lines, they shouldn't be necessary.
**
Didn't you file a bug against octave for the octave_cmd bit not working?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751792] Review Request: felix-gogo-runtime - Community OSGi R4 Service Platform Implementation - Basic Commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751792 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-12-17 03:39:57 --- Comment #10 from Alexander Kurtakov 2011-12-17 03:39:57 EST --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=279097 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 666311] Review Request: fritzing - Intuitive EDA platform from prototype to product
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666311 --- Comment #16 from Ed Marshall 2011-12-17 03:19:31 EST --- Spec URL: http://esm.logic.net/public/fedora/fritzing/fritzing.spec SRPM URL: http://esm.logic.net/public/fedora/fritzing/fritzing-0.6.4b-1.fc16.src.rpm Updated to the latest release (0.6.4b), mostly just cleanup from things that upstream incorporated for us, and adjusting the auto-update and external-libs patches. "ff" is still included internally (see above), and the new "QtSystemInfo" library (no apparent relation to the portion of qt-mobility with the same name, in case someone else decides to dig into this) is also bundled, with the same justification as with "ff". No rpmlint errors or warnings. No koji build this time; I just did a quick mock build of this, as I suspect I'll have to iterate on this a bit before it's ready to include. i686 RPM is available here: http://esm.logic.net/public/fedora/fritzing/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
