[Bug 770986] Review Request: rubygem-kgio - Kinder, gentler I/O for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770986
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2012-01-01
03:49:06 EST ---
For -2:
* Build failure
- -2 won't build - %check fails because ruby could not find
kgio_ext.so
(note that this is installed under %buildroot%ruby_sitearch
at %check, not under %buildroot%ruby_sitearch/kgio, i.e.
the last "kgio" part is not needed)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3612585
* Patches
- %check is not build phase and if you want to apply patches
*on the files to be packaged*,
I think it should be done on %prep or %build or %install.
(Sometimes you may want to disable %check due to
some reason, and for this reason files to be packaged
should not be modified on %check)
Note that sometimes I apply some patches on %check, for files
not under %buildroot. I usually do test programs under
%_builddir (normally ${HOME}/rpmbuild/BUILD) to make it sure
that files under %buildroot are not modified during %check
phase.
* Unused macro
- %ruby_sitelib macro is defined in the spec file but is
used nowhere.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770174] Review Request: kde-partitionmanager - GUI for managing disk partitions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770174 --- Comment #8 from Mattia 2012-01-01 04:40:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > So does this support parted 3 now? Yes, it successfully compile in F16 now (tried with a scratch build in koji with 'f16-candidate' as target). It should fix #757661. I applied a new review request because it's an orphaned package in database. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769697] Review Request: nested - A specialized editor focused on creating structured documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769697
--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-01-01 08:17:28
EST ---
rpmlint output:
nested.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nested/txt2tags.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
nested.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nested
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Get rid of the shebang in txt2tags.py. Shebangs aren't necessary in python
libraries, since they're not supposed to be run from the shell anyway.
**
The python spec file templates use
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
as the install command. I would recommend using this form.
**
Please note also that the use of the %{__python} macro is not necessary - you
can replace all occurrences with plain "python". Although macros exist for "mv"
(%{__mv}), "rm" (%{__rm}) and so on, I find these make the spec file harder to
read.
This is, however, just a question of opinion.
**
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
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
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
cbdc61bf592477116569ddb69cad07d5 nested-1.2.2.tar.gz
cbdc61bf592477116569ddb69cad07d5 ../SOURCES/nested-1.2.2.tar.gz
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
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. N/A
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
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
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. NEEDSWORK
- This is a GUI application and really should have a desktop file installed.
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. OK
EPEL: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
**
Please write a proper desktop file as per
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
and send it upstream for inclusion in the nested distribution tarball.
I believe you can use nested/nested.png (or .svg) as the icon. Install it into
%{_datadir}/pixmaps.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] New: Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 Summary: Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oschr...@redhat.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://oschreib.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-engine-sdk/ovirt-engine-sdk.spec SRPM URL: http://oschreib.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-engine-sdk/ovirt-engine-sdk-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: ovirt-engine-sdk is a python SDK for the oVirt-engine project. oVirt-Engine is a feature-rich virtualization management platform. More info can be found at http://www.ovirt.org/about/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77
Athmane Madjoudj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||athma...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj 2012-01-01 10:12:59
EST ---
Here's some comments (I'm not a packager):
- Changelog entry does not have version-release number
ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
- You can use %{version} %{release} macros in Source0 url
- If you're not going to support epel5, you can remove %defattr and BuildRoot
definition
- Source in SRPM and URL does not match (sha1):
67a2941be6370a011bdb8535108b2b75181f4a3e ovirt-engine-sdk-1.0-1.tar.gz
558f6bde9b2904fc30018f1b0f9e8914b007710e ovirt-engine-sdk-1.0-1.tar.gz
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77
--- Comment #2 from Ofer Schreiber 2012-01-01 10:23:25
EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Here's some comments (I'm not a packager):
>
> - Changelog entry does not have version-release number
> ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
Fixed.
>
> - You can use %{version} %{release} macros in Source0 url\
Fixed.
>
> - If you're not going to support epel5, you can remove %defattr and BuildRoot
> definition
I don't know about that yet
>
> - Source in SRPM and URL does not match (sha1):
>
> 67a2941be6370a011bdb8535108b2b75181f4a3e ovirt-engine-sdk-1.0-1.tar.gz
> 558f6bde9b2904fc30018f1b0f9e8914b007710e ovirt-engine-sdk-1.0-1.tar.gz
Fixed.
Thanks for 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 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #3 from Athmane Madjoudj 2012-01-01 10:33:13 EST --- Some other things (after building rpm): - You should make 'xml/params.py' executable or remove shebang (if it used as module) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries - You need to include a license file or contact upstream to include it. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #4 from Ofer Schreiber 2012-01-01 11:03:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > Some other things (after building rpm): > > - You should make 'xml/params.py' executable or remove shebang (if it used as > module) > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries Fixed locally (and uploaded new rpms). Upstream informed. > > > - You need to include a license file or contact upstream to include it. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Contacted upstream. Are you sure this package MUST include a license file? where should we deploy 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 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #5 from Athmane Madjoudj 2012-01-01 11:10:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) <...> > > > > > > > - You need to include a license file or contact upstream to include it. > > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > Contacted upstream. Are you sure this package MUST include a license file? > where should we deploy it? Should be included in %doc with (README and AUTHORS). From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines: License Text 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. If the source package does not include the text of the ^ license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #6 from Ofer Schreiber 2012-01-01 11:37:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > <...> > > > > > > > > > > > - You need to include a license file or contact upstream to include it. > > > See: > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > > Contacted upstream. Are you sure this package MUST include a license file? > > where should we deploy it? > > Should be included in %doc with (README and AUTHORS). > > From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines: > > License Text > > 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. If the source package does not include the text of > the > ^ > license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct > this mistake. Added README and AUTHORS to the doc dir. Still waiting to the LICENSE file from upstream. Thanks for 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 770174] Review Request: kde-partitionmanager - GUI for managing disk partitions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770174 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler 2012-01-01 12:17:06 EST --- > No rpmlint is right to warn, it is not like you can do: > /usr/share/applications/kde4/kde-partitionmanager.desktop > And have it do something, like you can do ie: > /bin/ls > And have it do something, so the file should not be marked executable. If more > kde4 packages are doing this then I say BAD kde4 ! :) No, rpmlint is wrong to warn. For security reasons, KDE requires .desktop files to have the executable bit set in most cases. This prevents e-mails from shipping a .desktop file as an attachment which runs some nasty command, possibly even a self-replicating worm. Now, there's an exception for files in /usr and/or owned by root, so for RPMs, it doesn't actually matter whether the +x bit is set or not, but KDE upstream considers that a backwards compatibility hack, and upstream always installs all .desktop files as executable. (As I understand it, the idea is that they should all be +x, we're just not there yet.) See: * http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-February/msg00132.html (which I think didn't end up getting applied though) * http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=123532436728689&w=4 * http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=128595109525156&w=4 We need to get this rpmlint warning dropped, and IMHO we should also make it a SHOULD or even a MUST in our packaging guidelines to have that +x bit set, and eventually start making desktops drop those compatibility hacks and just require +x on all .desktop files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770174] Review Request: kde-partitionmanager - GUI for managing disk partitions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770174 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler 2012-01-01 12:23:04 EST --- Oh, by the way, you can't run a .so either and yet it MUST have the +x bit set or debuginfo extraction doesn't work. So there's a precedent already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77
--- Comment #7 from Steven Dake 2012-01-01 12:20:52 EST ---
Ofer,
I am a packager and can provide reviews of other packagers packages, but you
need a Sponsor (see
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager/*/sponsor for a
list of sponsors) to provide the review so that you can eventually make it into
the packagers group (this allows people in the "Packagers" group to review your
packages).
Lets get started to help the sponsor out a bit.
The tarball is constructed incorrectly. There should only be a directory in
the top level of the tarball.
instead of:
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 343 2011-12-15 06:49 .gitignore
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 364 2011-12-15 06:49 .project
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 426 2011-12-15 06:49 .pydevproject
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 103 2011-12-15 06:49
.settings/org.eclipse.core.res
ources.prefs
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 99 2011-12-15 06:49 AUTHORS
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 123 2011-12-15 06:49 MANIFEST.in
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 1008 2011-12-27 07:51 Makefile
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 1760 2011-12-15 06:49 README
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 1577 2012-01-01 09:34 ovirt-engine-sdk.spec.in
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 2089 2011-12-15 06:49 parser_lex.py
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 10274 2011-12-15 06:49 parser_tab.py
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 925 2011-12-27 07:51 setup.py
-rw-rw-r-- oschreib/oschreib 529 2012-01-01 06:06
src/ovirt_engine_sdk.egg-inf
o/PKG-INFO
It should be something like:
/ovirt-engine-sdk/All those files
The tarball files should not have group writeable permissions.
I assume this problem occurs because upstream hasn't made a release of the
software. Provide feedback to upstream to ensure the release process produces
correct tarballs.
This will allow you to remove the lines:
%{__install} -p -m 644 AUTHORS %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/
%{__install} -p -m 644 README %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/
And change:
%doc %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/AUTHORS
%doc %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/README
to
%doc AUTHORS
%doc README
It is generally frowned upon to put upstream repository snapshots in Fedora.
Encourage upstream to make a tarball release. This may be a blocker issue for
the Sponsor reviewer (I am not certain on this point).
Please adjust the spec and rpm as per this message and then I'll walk through
list of review MUST and SHOULDs.
Regards
-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 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 --- Comment #2 from Michal Ambroz 2012-01-01 12:29:12 EST --- SPEC URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/nwipe.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/nwipe-0.05-2.fc16.src.rpm Hi Ivan, thank you for review. I have fixed the defattr and made explicit permissions for the manpage. Build root is there for compatibility with EPEL5 - if you do not mind I would rather keep it there. Michal Ambroz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752223] Review Request: racoon2 - an implementation of key management system for IPsec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752223 --- Comment #36 from Pavel Simerda 2012-01-01 12:39:59 EST --- Please try this new: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/racoon2-20100526a-11.fc16.src.rpm The updated specfile is still at the same location: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/racoon2.spec The main news are: * Fri Dec 30 2011 Pavel Šimerda - 20100526a-11 - Removed -fno-strict-aliasing - Removed -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 - Added rationale for --disable-kinkd and --disable-pedant - Removed @prefix@ from configuration files (patch) * Thu Dec 29 2011 Pavel Šimerda - 20100526a-10 - Added pwgen dependency - Moved various inline fixes from specfile to patches - Fixed racoon2 configuration path (/etc/racoon2) * Wed Dec 07 2011 Pavel Šimerda - 20100526a-9 - Incorporated more rpmlint feedback - Directories are now specified by macros - Added systemd scriptlets - Added needed /var/run/racoon2 directory - Added directories to %files section Racoon2 builds (on my i686 using rpmbuild), and runs. --disable-kinkd: KINK must be disabled unless krb5 is compiled --with-crypto-impl=builtin because kinkd uses krb5's internal crypto functions that are not compiled otherwise. I consider this a problem in racoon2 and not in krb5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 --- Comment #3 from Ivan Romanov 2012-01-01 12:44:24 EST --- Yeah if you able to support epel 5 you must use it. Also in your case you must use %clean stage. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770174] Review Request: kde-partitionmanager - GUI for managing disk partitions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770174 --- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter 2012-01-01 12:45:58 EST --- fyi, the rpmlint warning has been dropped in recent builds (rawhide at least, not sure if it's trickled down anywhere else yet), bug #767978 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 --- Comment #4 from Ivan Romanov 2012-01-01 12:54:05 EST --- Why did you apply fsf.patch? I think it has no any sense for users and can be dropped. You should apply only those patches which have some effects for Fedora users. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #8 from Oved Ourfali 2012-01-01 13:15:00 EST --- Our sponsor is David Nalley (cc-ed in this 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 731966] Review Request: openstack-glance - OpenStack Image 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=731966 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|mar...@redhat.com |sd...@redhat.com --- Comment #19 from Steven Dake 2012-01-01 13:16:26 EST --- Mark, Taking ownership of this bug. The person that completed the review should be the owner of the bug per fedora guidelines. Thanks -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 771123] New: Review Request: fex - Field split/extraction like cut/awk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fex - Field split/extraction like cut/awk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771123 Summary: Review Request: fex - Field split/extraction like cut/awk Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmcki...@nexcess.net 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://mmckinst.fedorapeople.org/packages/fex/fex.spec SRPM URL: http://mmckinst.fedorapeople.org/packages/fex/fex-1.20100416.2814-1.fc16.src.rpm Scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3612970 Description: Fex is a powerful field extraction tool. Fex provides a very concise language for tokenizeing strings and extracting fields. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770986] Review Request: rubygem-kgio - Kinder, gentler I/O for Ruby
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770986 --- Comment #4 from Guillermo Gómez 2012-01-01 13:28:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > For -2: > * Build failure > - -2 won't build - %check fails because ruby could not find > kgio_ext.so Fixed > * Patches > - %check is not build phase and if you want to apply patches > *on the files to be packaged*, Fixed (moved to %install section) > * Unused macro > - %ruby_sitelib macro is defined in the spec file but is > used nowhere. Fixed (removed) new SPEC url:http://gomix.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-kgio/rubygem-kgio.spec new SRPM url:http://gomix.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-kgio/rubygem-kgio-2.7.0-3.fc16.src.rpm $ rpmlint -v SPECS/rubygem-kgio.spec SPECS/rubygem-kgio.spec: I: checking-url http://rubygems.org/downloads/kgio-2.7.0.gem (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -v SRPMS/rubygem-kgio-2.7.0-3.fc16.src.rpm rubygem-kgio.src: I: checking rubygem-kgio.src: I: checking-url http://bogomips.org/kgio (timeout 10 seconds) rubygem-kgio.src: I: checking-url http://rubygems.org/downloads/kgio-2.7.0.gem (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -v RPMS/x86_64/rubygem-kgio-2.7.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm rubygem-kgio.x86_64: I: checking rubygem-kgio.x86_64: I: checking-url http://bogomips.org/kgio (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -v RPMS/x86_64/rubygem-kgio-doc-2.7.0-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm rubygem-kgio-doc.x86_64: I: checking rubygem-kgio-doc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://bogomips.org/kgio (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. :) Thanks again for reviewing _- Guillermo -_ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #9 from Ofer Schreiber 2012-01-01 14:48:14 EST --- Steve, Many thanks for your reply. I'm working closely with oVirt upstream community in order to create the right release process. I've uploaded a new set of TAR/SRPM/SPEC into http://oschreib.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-engine-sdk/ and I hope it will fix all the issues mentioned above. -Ofer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752223] Review Request: racoon2 - an implementation of key management system for IPsec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752223 --- Comment #37 from Pavel Simerda 2012-01-01 15:01:59 EST --- Racoon2 now also builds for EPEL6: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/racoon2.spec http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/racoon2-20100526a-12.el6.src.rpm * Sun Jan 01 2012 Pavel Šimerda https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753354] Review Request: strongswan - IKEv1 and IKEv2 daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753354 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Simerda 2012-01-01 15:03:24 EST --- Strongswan now build for EPEL6 and has a new version 4.6.1: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/strongswan.spec http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/strongswan-4.6.1-1.el6.src.rpm * Sun Jan 01 2012 Pavel Šimerda https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770174] Review Request: kde-partitionmanager - GUI for managing disk partitions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770174 --- Comment #12 from Hans de Goede 2012-01-01 15:13:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > > No rpmlint is right to warn, it is not like you can do: > > /usr/share/applications/kde4/kde-partitionmanager.desktop > > And have it do something, like you can do ie: > > /bin/ls > > And have it do something, so the file should not be marked executable. If > > more > > kde4 packages are doing this then I say BAD kde4 ! :) > > No, rpmlint is wrong to warn. > > For security reasons, KDE requires .desktop files to have the executable bit > set in most cases. This prevents e-mails from shipping a .desktop file as an > attachment which runs some nasty command, possibly even a self-replicating > worm. Ah, interesting I did not know that live and learn. I stand corrected then :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770174] Review Request: kde-partitionmanager - GUI for managing disk partitions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770174 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede 2012-01-01 15:17:23 EST --- Hi, (In reply to comment #6) > Thank you Hans & Robin. > > I've uploaded the new .spec and .src > http://www.messafuoco.com/fedora/kde-partitionmanager.spec This looks good now -> approved! If you create a FAS account (if you've not done so already) and let me know your FAS login then I'll sponsor you. Regards, Hans p.s. I guess you should drop the chmod -x I made you add, given Kevin comments. Please do this either before importing the package into git, or change it in git before building the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 --- Comment #5 from Michal Ambroz 2012-01-01 15:44:39 EST --- SPEC URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/nwipe.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/nwipe-0.05-3.fc16.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > Also in your case you must use %clean stage. Added - thanks for spotting. (In reply to comment #4) > Why did you apply fsf.patch? > I think it has no any sense for users and can be dropped. > You should apply only those patches which have some effects for Fedora > users. According to several discussions with Tom Spot Callaway on the list it seems that this thing is important, should be reported upstream and sooner or later fixed. I know having the patch is not required, but packagers are welcomed and permitted to do so. See his email in the legal list: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-August/001701.html Best regards Michal Ambroz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771135] Review Request: pykde4 - Python bindings for KDE4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771135 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||765955(kde-4.8), ||656997(kde-reviews) Alias||pykde4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771135] New: Review Request: pykde4 - Python bindings for KDE4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pykde4 - Python bindings for KDE4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771135 Summary: Review Request: pykde4 - Python bindings for KDE4 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu 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://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdebindings/pykde4.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdebindings/pykde4-4.7.95-10.fc16.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for KDE4 Package rename, PyKDE4 -> pykde4, to match new upstream conventions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 719707] Review Request: PyKDE4 - Python bindings for KDE4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719707 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|PyKDE4 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598860] Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP 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=598860 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2012-01-01 15:57:14 EST --- I believe what provided below links are works, at least for src.rpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora15/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.21-1.fc15.src.rpm http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora15/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec I'll be glad if you take it, but what you are mean under "a normal fedora system"?? Could you please provide link to guideline or policy? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 765651] Review Request: asterisk-gui - Graphical interface for Asterisk configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=765651 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 765651] Review Request: asterisk-gui - Graphical interface for Asterisk configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=765651 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-01 16:05:22 EST --- asterisk-gui-2.0-3.20111230svn5218.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/asterisk-gui-2.0-3.20111230svn5218.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 765651] Review Request: asterisk-gui - Graphical interface for Asterisk configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=765651 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-01 16:07:06 EST --- asterisk-gui-2.0-3.20111230svn5218.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/asterisk-gui-2.0-3.20111230svn5218.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 765651] Review Request: asterisk-gui - Graphical interface for Asterisk configuration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=765651 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-01 16:09:02 EST --- asterisk-gui-2.0-3.20111230svn5218.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/asterisk-gui-2.0-3.20111230svn5218.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 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 #31 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-01 16:20:44 EST --- fritzing-0.6.4b-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 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 #31 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-01 16:20:44 EST --- fritzing-0.6.4b-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||fritzing-0.6.4b-2.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-01 16:21:31 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-01 16:21:31 EST --- fritzing-0.6.4b-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||fritzing-0.6.4b-2.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-01 16:21:31 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-01 16:21:31 EST --- fritzing-0.6.4b-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 771137] New: Review Request: decibel-audio-player - straightforward music player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: decibel-audio-player - straightforward music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771137
Summary: Review Request: decibel-audio-player - straightforward
music player
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: l...@redhat.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://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08/decibel-audio-player.spec
SRPM URL:
http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08/decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.f15.src.rpm
Description:
Decibel is an audio player that aims at being very straightforward to use by
means of a very clean and user friendly interface. It is especially targeted
at GNOME and will follow, as closely as possible, the GNOME HIG. It makes use
of the GStreamer library to read audio files.
THIS PACKAGE HAS BEEN ORPHANED AND THEN DEPRECATED: """This package was retired
on 2011-07-25 due to it being unable to build this package for multiple
releases (FTBFS)."""
[lzap@lzapx 1.08]$ rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[lzap@lzapx 1.08]$ rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.f15.src.rpm
decibel-audio-player.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
decibel-audio-player.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
decibel-audio-player.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %patch0
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770283] Review Request: uptimed - A daemon to record and keep track of system up times
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770283 --- Comment #4 from Tomasz Torcz 2012-01-01 16:49:53 EST --- Hi Ivan, Thanks for your review. In -3, I've corrected everything except one thing. You are right about -devel package containing almost nothing. I've did it because rpmlint complained that libuptimed.so should go into separate package. During testing I've found out that uptimed works fine without this .so file. And after some analysis, it seems that library is here only because both uptimed (daemon) and uprecords (client) use the same functions. No other program is expected to use this API Therefore I'd rather drop this unversioned .so and -devel package. Would it be OK? Current spec: Spec URL: http://pipebreaker.pl/dump/uptimed.spec SRPM URL: http://pipebreaker.pl/dump/uptimed-0.3.16-3.fc16.src.rpm Scratch : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3613084 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77
--- Comment #10 from Steven Dake 2012-01-01 17:55:25 EST ---
Initial take on spec file:
1. Release should be:
Release: 1%{?dist}
This will trigger .fc16 or .fc17 to be placed in the rpm spec file.
2. BuildRoot is no longer needed in Fedora. Please remove these lines.
3. BuildArch is not needed in Fedora. Please remove these lines.
4. %clean section is no longer needed in Fedora. Please remove this section.
5. %{python_sitelib}/ovirtsdk is an unowned dir. To own it, change the line
to:
%dir %attr(0755, root, root) %{python_sitelib}/ovirtsdk
6. The %description section should contain more details and proper sentences
rather then a Summary (this is what %summary is for). For example : This
package contains The oVirt Software Development Kit. With this package, custom
software can be built for ovirt (or whatever it does..).
7. The %install section should not contain anything that removes the buildroot.
Remove:
[ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
8. The #Source0 should be removed. checked in spec files should not have
"commented out code".
9. What is oschr...@redhat.com.org? Please correct the changelog.
10. If I was a sponsor, I would not approve a package for a snapshot of a
source repository that was not released as an official upstream artifact.
MUST review next.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77
--- Comment #11 from Steven Dake 2012-01-01 18:11:45 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.[1]
[root@beast noarch]# rpmlint ovirt-engine-sdk-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
ovirt-engine-sdk.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt Engine Software
Development Kit
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[root@beast SRPMS]# rpmlint ovirt-engine-sdk-1.0-1.src.rpm
ovirt-engine-sdk.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt Engine Software
Development Kit
ovirt-engine-sdk.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ovirt-engine-sdk.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
not capitalized warning will be resolved by using a proper description.
macro in comment should go away with the deletion of #Source
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
Typically software development kits would be named "devel" ie:
ovirt-engine-devel
QUESTION: Is there some rationale for not using -devel?
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
PASS
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
PASS
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
This is difficult to tell. Only setup.py contains the license type.
UPSTREAM REQUEST: Please file a bug with upstream to place license text in
every source file.
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.[4]
The license is not in the source tarball. It is typical for packages to
include the license in the source tree and include it as a %doc.
UPSTREAM REQUEST: Please file a bug with upstream to place the full license
file in the tarball.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
PASS
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
PASS
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.
If I were a sponsor I would not approve this package as there is no upstream
release of the software. However, the files do match.
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
PASS
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. [8]
N/A
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.
Will review in the python-specific requirements.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
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. [10]
N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
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. [12]
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. [13]
FAIL: %{python_sitelib}/ovirtsdk is an unowned directory.
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)[14]
PASS
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
PASS
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
FAIL: %dist is not properly used in the Release field.
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
PASS
MUST: Large documentation files mu
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #12 from Steven Dake 2012-01-01 18:23:15 EST --- PYTHON specific review guidelines: MUST To build a package containing python2 files, you need to have BuildRequires: python2-devel FAIL: Please remove the odd BuildRequires setup.py should be executable in the tarball Please remove the python_sitelib macros. These are not needed in Fedora. Must: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details) PASS Must: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. PASS Must: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. N/A Must: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. Should: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. 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 770283] Review Request: uptimed - A daemon to record and keep track of system up times
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770283 --- Comment #5 from Ivan Romanov 2012-01-01 22:45:02 EST --- I've read your last changelog ... and I can't understand which changes you do? Please avoid such 'correct review issues'. It's prefer to describe every atomic changes in changelog. And to write explanations in comments above changes. Please correct changelog. Someone would want to use uptimed library for him owner program. But you are not providing him this feature. I think it is bad. My opinion packages should always provides -devel and -static subpackages when it is possible. In your case it looks as issue (devel library without headers) for upstream. I think you should to get explanations from upstream before we can continue review. You skipped question about /etc/init.d/uptimed. I think it's important. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 --- Comment #6 from Ivan Romanov 2012-01-01 23:15:16 EST --- Now package looks good. But EL5 building was failed. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3613230 I haven't any ideas 'why'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770283] Review Request: uptimed - A daemon to record and keep track of system up times
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770283 --- Comment #6 from Tomasz Torcz 2012-01-02 01:34:15 EST --- uptimed.spec with corrected changelog is uploaded to above URL. I will ask upstream about devel issue and get back with info. For SysV init script, it is obsolete and I won't be providing it: "SysV Initscripts Packages may also provide a SysV initscript file, but are not required to do so. This format is considered legacy" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770152] Review Request: gnome-boxes - A simple GNOME 3 application to access remote or virtual 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=770152
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Fergeau 2012-01-02
02:32:02 EST ---
I have uploaded a new spec and a new srpm to the URLs above.
Changes:
* s/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_buildroot}
* removed useless patch
* added fuseinfo dependency
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
