[Bug 781687] Review Request: lv2-ui - an extension of the LV2 audio plugin framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781687
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-19
02:42:34 EST ---
I spoke to Dave Robbillard and he's quite against splitting up the LV2 packages
for whatever reason.
The spec dictates that a bundle simply owns all of the files in its directory
in this case %{_libdir}/lv2/ui.lv2, thus the reason why the symlink to the
header file is in %{_includedir} and not the other way around.
In this case would it be possible to simply ship everything in one package? Any
plugins which use the extension would then have both Requires and BuildRequires
on this 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 725292] Review Request: s3fs - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 --- Comment #14 from Jorge A Gallegos 2012-01-19 01:06:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) > > Conflicts: fuse-s3fs > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Common_Conflicting_Files_Cases_and_Solutions That anchor does not exist, but I believe this case https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Binary_Name_Conflicts is what would apply here. The only reason I am setting the Conflicts flag is because the binaries actually clash, both are installed as /usr/bin/s3fs. It suggests using either alternatives or environment modules to alleviate this. I have a question tho, would installing this new binary as /usr/bin/fuse-s3fs (or similar) be an acceptable workaround? this program hasn't been packaged in either arch, debian or ubuntu (I searched in all). I believe this would be the first "official" package of said software. If that is an acceptable workaround I can even propose that when contacting upstream, it would basically be a "heads up, guys" and see if they are happy with it. > > Could you sort out the "Conflicts" by getting in contact with Neil Horman ( > https://fedorahosted.org/s3fs/ ) and the developers of this s3fs software? I will contact Norman and the guys from google code's s3fs and see what I can find out. Historically, the google code's take on s3fs would get to keep the name since Norman's version came up later (there's mention of that project in the fedorahosted page). There was even a third one that went nowhere (http://code.google.com/p/s3fs-fuse/) > > That web page already comments on the potentially conflicting naming, but if > the conflict cannot be resolved, it will be necessary to talk to the > Fedora Packaging Committee: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Other_Uses_of_Conflicts: > > There has been a new release of fuse-s3fs recently, btw, so one cannot claim > it > would be dead: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5960 That is probably because of this recent thread: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-August/155935.html I would note that http://code.google.com/p/s3fs/source/list looks more active than https://fedorahosted.org/s3fs/log/src/s3fs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783016] New: Review Request: pilas - A simple to use video game framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pilas - A simple to use video game framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783016 Summary: Review Request: pilas - A simple to use video game framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: morphe...@fedoraproject.org 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://morpheusv.fedorapeople.org/pilas/0.64-1/pilas.spec SRPM URL: http://morpheusv.fedorapeople.org/pilas/0.64-1/pilas-0.64-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Pilas is a game engine to make it easy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783015] New: Review Request: meataxe - Matrix representations over finite fields
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: meataxe - Matrix representations over finite fields https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783015 Summary: Review Request: meataxe - Matrix representations over finite fields Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganje...@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://jjames.fedorapeople.org/meataxe/meataxe.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/meataxe/meataxe-2.4.24-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The MeatAxe is a set of programs for working with matrix representations over finite fields. Permutation representations are supported to some extent, too. This package is used by some GAP add-on packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664912] Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664912 --- Comment #16 from Ralf Corsepius 2012-01-18 23:36:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) > > Petr, some open and direct words: In case you're not aware about it, the > > style > > of your reviews is hardly bearable and childishly pedantic. > > That's purpose of a review. No, the purpose of a review is to assure a package integrates properly into a system. This often means to find pragmatical compromises and not to behave infantile, silly and bureaucratic. > To criticize anything that diverts a package from > the ideal and to assure Fedora will deliver high-quality packages. That's what bureaucrats believe - I guess, you're too young to comprehend you're in error. > > It is driving people away from Fedora. > Better smaller good distribution than bigger crappy one. Sure, but that's not what you are doing - With all due respect, you have turned contributing perl modules into tedious burdon, nobody can be interested in. Finally, the reason for the crappy shape Fedora is in is not perl - they are elsewhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769450] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769450 --- Comment #5 from Scott Tsai 2012-01-18 22:36:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > I'm starting to feel guilty about all the work you've put into reviewing for > me. If you've got a package that needs review, drop me an email. Not a problem! ^_^ I'll be sure to drop you a mail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769450] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769450 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jerry James 2012-01-18 22:34:58 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-table-of-marks Short Description: GAP Table of Marks package Owners: jjames 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 769450] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769450 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James 2012-01-18 22:11:28 EST --- It would be nice if %check would work. I'll ask upstream whether the next version of GAP might support that. Thanks again, Scott. I'm starting to feel guilty about all the work you've put into reviewing for me. If you've got a package that needs review, drop me an email. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782823] Review Request: ZipArchive - Library for accessing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782823 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-01-18 21:19:18 --- Comment #1 from Robin Lee 2012-01-18 21:19:18 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 773313 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 773313] Review Request: ZipArchive - The ZipArchive library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773313 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Robin Lee 2012-01-18 21:19:18 EST --- *** Bug 782823 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759779] Review Request: rachota - Straightforward timetracking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759779 MERCIER Jonathan changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bioinfornat...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753262] Review Request: qxmpp-dev - Qt XMPP Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753262 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.1-4.fc15 |qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.1-4.fc16 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:35:42 EST --- qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.1-4.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 759941] Review Request: spatialite-gui - GUI to manage Spatialite databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759941 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||spatialite-gui-1.4.0-3.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-18 20:32:11 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:32:11 EST --- spatialite-gui-1.4.0-3.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 753262] Review Request: qxmpp-dev - Qt XMPP Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753262 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.1-4.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-18 20:33:53 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:33:53 EST --- qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.1-4.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 711313] Review Request: wicd-kde - a Wicd client built on the KDE Development 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=711313 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|wicd-kde-0.3.0-1.fc16 |wicd-kde-0.3.0-1.fc15 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:31:27 EST --- wicd-kde-0.3.0-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709290] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709290 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:32:53 EST --- perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759941] Review Request: spatialite-gui - GUI to manage Spatialite databases
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759941 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|spatialite-gui-1.4.0-3.fc16 |spatialite-gui-1.4.0-3.fc15 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:34:57 EST --- spatialite-gui-1.4.0-3.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 759779] Review Request: rachota - Straightforward timetracking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759779 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:34:32 EST --- rachota-2.3-3.20120110cvs.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 711313] Review Request: wicd-kde - a Wicd client built on the KDE Development 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=711313 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|wicd-kde-0.2.3-3.fc15 |wicd-kde-0.3.0-1.fc16 --- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 20:29:21 EST --- wicd-kde-0.3.0-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #19 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-18 18:26:03 EST --- Yes, it builds and installs in the F17 VM, if I manually rebuild the updated dependencies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782957] New: Review Request: musca - A simple dynamic window manager fox X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: musca - A simple dynamic window manager fox X https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782957 Summary: Review Request: musca - A simple dynamic window manager fox X Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: splinu...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Hello, My main interest is to maintain this packages for EPEL :-) (It should work on Fedora. Built fine with mock) Spec URL: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/packages/musca/musca.spec SRPM URL: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/packages/musca/musca-0.9.24-1.el6.src.rpm Description: musca is a simple dynamic window manager for X, with features nicked from ratpoison and dwm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768310] Review Request: gridftp-ifce - GridFTP abstraction layer for wlcg.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768310 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 17:21:42 EST --- gridftp-ifce-2.1.3-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gridftp-ifce-2.1.3-4.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Adam Huffman changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bl...@verdurin.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #18 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-18 17:18:53 EST
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/adam/Fedora/fedora-review/770152/gnome-boxes-3.3.4.tar.xz :
MD5SUM this package : 2e203398f1912ddc47ba86ea7514d12e
MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[ ]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note: %define
Issues:
[!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses m
[Bug 781624] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781624 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: opa - Opa, |Review Request: opa - Opa, |AGPL language for web 2.0, |AGPL language for web 2.0 |first submission, need | |sponsor | --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2012-01-18 16:46:57 EST --- I can't download the spec, as my IP seems to be already in use there (wtf??). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 615108] Review Request: cpuset - Allows easy use of cpugroup and application mapping
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615108 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #4 from Thomas Spura 2012-01-18 16:38:19 EST --- Are you still interested to become a packager? (There is more needed than just pasting a spec file from suse...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760033] Review Request: kde-plasma-publictransport - Public Transport plasma applet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760033 --- Comment #12 from Gregor Tätzner 2012-01-18 16:32:33 EST --- Doh...now I have got it, thanks ;) Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/kde-plasma-publictransport.spec SRPM Url: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/kde-plasma-publictransport-0.10-0.3.20111204git.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 767185] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767185 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Spura 2012-01-18 16:23:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > PIDA does in fact work with this. Great. > I propose simply not shipping debug, do you think that would work? debug is only used in one example, so expect a bug, when someone wants to use it too :) Otherwise, go for 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 768007] Review Request: python-flatland - HTML form management and validation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768007 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Spura 2012-01-18 16:19:05 EST --- Sorry, proper koji build with BR python-nose: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3712734 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768007] Review Request: python-flatland - HTML form management and validation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768007
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura 2012-01-18
16:14:53 EST ---
Review:
- $ rpmlint /home/tom/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-flatland-0.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
/home/tom/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-flatland-0.0.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
python-flatland.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace -> name
space, name-space, names pace
python-flatland.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jek-flatland-0938e70bb76d.tar.bz2
python-flatland.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespace ->
name space, name-space, names pace
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
all ignorable
- koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3712729
- source match upstream:
2a0185ad21e9f45a5be67fda5fb43b81 jek-flatland-0938e70bb76d.tar.bz2
- license ok
NEEDSWORK:
- please be more specific in %files:
%{python_sitelib}/flatland-*py?.?.egg-info
%{python_sitelib}/flatland/
- Query upstream to include license headers
- Please add a check section:
%check
nosetests -v
Then you see, there is at least one missing dep blinker (both BR and R).
Please implement the NEEDSWORK issues, but as they are all "should":
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 782225] Review Request: ehcache-parent - Ehcache Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782225 David Nalley changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782225] Review Request: ehcache-parent - Ehcache Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782225 --- Comment #13 from David Nalley 2012-01-18 15:48:51 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ehcache-parent Short Description: Ehcache Parent Owners: ke4qqq Branches: f16 InitialCC: java-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781687] Review Request: lv2-ui - an extension of the LV2 audio plugin framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781687
--- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-18
15:26:47 EST ---
OK, that all makes sense. Given that
%{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/extensions and
%{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/ext are used for extensions that are
considered part of the LV2 spec, it is save to give ownership to lv2core-devel.
No guarantee future extensions will be part of those two directories so it
should own ns as well.
Also,
+1 to giving ownership of %{_libdir}/lv2 to lv2core
and moving the header into -devel (it is currently a symlink across packages)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772751] Review Request: git-review - Helper for Gerrit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772751 --- Comment #4 from Pete Zaitcev 2012-01-18 15:00:38 EST --- Implemented the sed fix in %build for 1.9-4. Oh that blasted github... [root@lembas zaitcev]# rpmlint rpms/SPECS/git-review.spec rpms/SPECS/git-review.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: openstack-ci-git-review-1.9-0-ga28af31.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [root@lembas zaitcev]# rpm -U rpms/RPMS/noarch/git-review-1.9-4.fc16.noarch.rpm [root@lembas zaitcev]# rpmlint git-review git-review.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rfc -> RFC, rec, Pfc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [root@lembas zaitcev]# -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781831] Review Request: python-nova-adminclient - Nova administration Python API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781831 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 14:57:54 EST --- python-nova-adminclient-0.1.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 676129] Review Request: qconf - Allows you to have a nice configure script for your qmake-based project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676129 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|qconf-1.4-2.fc14|qconf-1.4-4.el6 --- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 14:56:38 EST --- qconf-1.4-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737286] Review Request: salt - A parallel remote execution system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737286 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 14:57:08 EST --- salt-0.9.4-7.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768183] Review Request: is-interface - library for the information system in wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 14:56:15 EST --- is-interface-1.12.1-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782220] Review Request: dlm - cluster infrastructure for dlm (distributed lock manager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782220 --- Comment #8 from Dave Teigland 2012-01-18 14:50:27 EST --- http://people.redhat.com/teigland/dlm.spec http://people.redhat.com/teigland/dlm-3.9.0-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782220] Review Request: dlm - cluster infrastructure for dlm (distributed lock manager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782220 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake 2012-01-18 14:36:39 EST --- post an updated spec and rpm and I'll have a look at the changes. 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 782786] Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782786 --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking 2012-01-18 14:31:54 EST --- Thank you for the immediate review. I've compiled two patches that fix the warnings and reported them upstream: https://bugs.launchpad.net/equalx/+bug/918337 > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > NEEDSWORK > - The Version should be 0.51 to be in accordance with the package naming > guidelines. > - However, the upstream page clearly states that this is supposed to be 0.5.1. > - Please ask that upstream sanitizes their tarball naming. Done (https://bugs.launchpad.net/equalx/+bug/918340). Let's wait if upstream provides an updated archive. In the meantime I keep this issue unchanged since version string 0.51 would probably introduce problems with future package updates. > - Some source code files specify GPLv3+ license, while some specify the GPL > (no > version) and others have no license headers at all. > - The attached LICENSE states that EqualX is distributed under GPLv3+. > The resulting license is thus GPLv3+. However, please ask upstream to add the > missing license boilerplates. Done (https://bugs.launchpad.net/equalx/+bug/918347). > MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK > - Please use the '-p' flag for install. Done. > Furthermore, the summary isn't quite satisfactory. I'd change it to something > like "A graphical editor for writing LaTeX equations". Yes, that's indeed a more descriptive summary. Fixed. > I trust you have sent Source1 upstream? Actually, it's the desktop file from the source archive with a couple of fixes. I'm going to report them upstream, too. I thought it's easier to add a new file than patching the existing one. ;) Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/equalx.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/equalx-0.5.1-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782225] Review Request: ehcache-parent - Ehcache Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782225 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Steven Dake 2012-01-18 14:30:28 EST --- APPROVED. Please submit a SCM request. 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 757354] Review Request: telepathy-kde-auth-handler - Provide UI/KWallet Integration For Passwords and SSL Errors on Account Connect
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757354 Tom McKay changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||782138 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757354] Review Request: telepathy-kde-auth-handler - Provide UI/KWallet Integration For Passwords and SSL Errors on Account Connect
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757354 Tom McKay changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|782138 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782225] Review Request: ehcache-parent - Ehcache Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782225 --- Comment #10 from Steven Dake 2012-01-18 13:59:02 EST --- David, Ok ack on comment #9. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782225] Review Request: ehcache-parent - Ehcache Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782225 --- Comment #11 from David Nalley 2012-01-18 13:59:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > This is first java package I have reviewed, so forgive my ignorance here: > line 23-24: > > Requires(post): jpackage-utils > Requires(postun): jpackage-utils > > Requirement says "Package _DOES NOT_ have Requires(post/postun) on > jpackage-utils > > There is clearly a requires on jpackage-utils in the post/postun section > > line 43-47: > > %post > %update_maven_depmap > > %postun > %update_maven_depmap > > Requirement says "Package _DOES NOT_ use %update_maven_depmap in > %post/%postun" > > They are clearly used in these sections. > > Since java is out of my area of expertise (I normally review python/c > packages), if you can find a confident java packager to signoff on this > portion, obtain an exception from the java sig, or have someone from the java > sig educate me on the rationale for these requirements, I'd be happy to > approve > the package. > > Regards > -steve Well - I fail. Not only do I fail to adhere to the guidelines, I apparently can't read either. Fixed here: SRPM: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/ehcache-parent-2.3-2.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/ehcache-parent.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782225] Review Request: ehcache-parent - Ehcache Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782225 --- Comment #9 from David Nalley 2012-01-18 13:57:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Regarding comment #4, upstream hasn't released a tarball? I have some concern > that the build would not be reproducible from the upstream if that branch > changed. Even so, given that you have followed the appropriate process as per > packaging guidelines, I'll PASS this particular requirement. > > Can you please nag upstream to release a tarball? Well yes and no - they release a tarball, but it's effectively binary. It's from a tag, not a branch, which should be far more static. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782220] Review Request: dlm - cluster infrastructure for dlm (distributed lock manager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782220
--- Comment #6 from Dave Teigland 2012-01-18 13:47:39 EST
---
more changes, rpmlint now tells me:
dlm.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2, GPLv2+, LGPLv2+
That's the license, take it or leave it.
dlm.src:35: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/systemd/systemd-dlm
dlm.src:58: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/systemd/systemd-dlm
This is the only way I found to do this (%{_lib} is not correct here AFAICT)
dlm.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/d/l/dlm/dlm-3.9.0.tar.gz
Will upload once final.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709290] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709290 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 709290] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709290 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 12:51:14 EST --- perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-LWP-Protocol-http10-6.02-3.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772751] Review Request: git-review - Helper for Gerrit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772751 --- Comment #3 from Spencer Jackson 2012-01-18 12:48:41 EST --- Ah, my bad on the EPEL support. As for the LICENSE encoding, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding describes how to fix the issue using sed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782786 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-01-18 12:14:15 EST --- Furthermore, the summary isn't quite satisfactory. I'd change it to something like "A graphical editor for writing LaTeX equations". I trust you have sent Source1 upstream? Please make a note about it in the spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782786
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-01-18 12:12:23
EST ---
rpmlint output:
equalx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary equalx
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
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.
NEEDSWORK
- The Version should be 0.51 to be in accordance with the package naming
guidelines.
- However, the upstream page clearly states that this is supposed to be 0.5.1.
- Please ask that upstream sanitizes their tarball naming.
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
- Some source code files specify GPLv3+ license, while some specify the GPL (no
version) and others have no license headers at all.
- The attached LICENSE states that EqualX is distributed under GPLv3+.
The resulting license is thus GPLv3+. However, please ask upstream to add the
missing license boilerplates.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
397d5cfb6036212d66dd7baa0bba2a47 equalx_0.51.orig.zip
397d5cfb6036212d66dd7baa0bba2a47 ../SOURCES/equalx_0.51.orig.zip
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK
- Please use the '-p' flag for install.
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
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. OK
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
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 773419] Review Request: warmux - 2D turn-based artillery 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=773419 --- Comment #4 from Jiri Popelka 2012-01-18 12:02:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > i.e. without Provides, it needs user action to find out that the replacement > is > available, and to explicitly install wArmux > > am I mistaken? > - is it enough to have Obsoletes? - I though that "Obsoletes" is more like a > Conflicts, that it would expel the old package (saying it is safe to uninstall > it, unlike Conflicts which needs manual intervention to decide which one to > keep) ... reading RPM Guide, I'm really not sure how does that work when it > comes to upgrading :-( Obsoletes is sufficient when updating. Provides is only needed when installing new package. > unfortunately, one new issue slipped in: > > SPECS/warmux.spec:60: W: macro-in-comment %configure Already fixed in that uploaded spec file. The uploaded srpm contains this problem because I was lazy to upload (it's quite big) also fixed srpm. > warmux.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/cpf/LC_MESSAGES/warmux.mo > > - which is a false positive, bug #782818 filed for that Thanks, I should have filled it myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782786 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-01-18 11:53:12 EST --- There are some compiler warnings that you should take up with upstream. src/LatexEditor.cpp: In member function 'bool LatexEditor::findNext()': src/LatexEditor.cpp:210:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type] src/LatexEditor.cpp: In member function 'bool LatexEditor::findPrevious()': src/LatexEditor.cpp:217:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type] src/DialogAbout.cpp:15:6: warning: unused parameter 'text' [-Wunused-parameter] src/DialogReplace.cpp:72:6: warning: unused parameter 'replaceExpr' [-Wunused-parameter] include/MainWindow.h: In constructor 'MainWindow::MainWindow(QWidget*)': include/MainWindow.h:192:9: warning: 'MainWindow::nUpdates' will be initialized after [-Wreorder] include/MainWindow.h:191:9: warning: 'int MainWindow::zoomFactor' [-Wreorder] src/MainWindow.cpp:61:1: warning: when initialized here [-Wreorder] src/MainWindow.cpp: In member function 'bool MainWindow::runCommand(const QString&)': src/MainWindow.cpp:1022:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type] src/MainWindow.cpp: In member function 'bool MainWindow::exportToTeX()': src/MainWindow.cpp:731:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] src/MainWindow.cpp: In member function 'bool MainWindow::exportToDVI()': src/MainWindow.cpp:652:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755484] Review Request: maven-toolchains-plugin - Maven plugin for sharing configuration across projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755484 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 773357] Review Request: felix-gogo-shell - 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=773357 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751083] Review Request: jetty-build-support - Jetty build support files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751083 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 773419] Review Request: warmux - 2D turn-based artillery 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=773419
Karel Volný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|VERIFIED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Karel Volný 2012-01-18 11:15:46 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > 1) package renaming - FAIL
> > there is missing
> > Provides: wormux = %{version}-%{release}
> >
> > so the package does NOT provide a clean update path, see
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
>
> I know, but actually it DOES, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F
>
> Anyway, I've added the Provides.
ah, I've missed that bit, thanks for pointing that out (maybe the guidelines
would need some updating, but ...)
however, I thought the way it works is
1. someone has wOrmux installed
2. runs yum upgrade
3. yum looks into repos what provides wOrmux
no provides:
4. wOrmux is provided only by wOrmux, yum sees no new version => no upgrade
wArmux has Provides: wOrmux:
4. yum finds that wOrmux is provided by wArmux and the provided version is
newer => upgrade from wOrmux to wArmux
i.e. without Provides, it needs user action to find out that the replacement is
available, and to explicitly install wArmux
am I mistaken?
- is it enough to have Obsoletes? - I though that "Obsoletes" is more like a
Conflicts, that it would expel the old package (saying it is safe to uninstall
it, unlike Conflicts which needs manual intervention to decide which one to
keep) ... reading RPM Guide, I'm really not sure how does that work when it
comes to upgrading :-(
... anyways :-) there is now
Provides: wormux = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: wormux-data = %{version}-%{release}
- ok
> > * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
> > at
> > least one primary architecture.
> >
> > - FAIL - this doesn't build in rawhide, due to missing zlib include, see
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3697088
> I've added the include, but there's still some other problem that I can't
> figure out. I think it could be related to new GCC 4.7 used in rawhide as I
> can't see any problem in the code.
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3705602
I've saw some mentions about build failures that were fixed by Petr Písař - not
sure if this could be the same issue, but you can try asking ...
> --- Summary ---
> I think I've fixed all the problems you mentioned except the rawhide building
> problem which I'll try to narrow down later.
> Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/warmux.spec
> SRPM URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/warmux-11.04.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
agreed, thanks
unfortunately, one new issue slipped in:
SPECS/warmux.spec:60: W: macro-in-comment %configure
- not a blocker, but please fix on next update
and rpmlint now reports a new error:
warmux.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir
/usr/share/locale/cpf/LC_MESSAGES/warmux.mo
- which is a false positive, bug #782818 filed for that
(generally, the locales look okay, I've tried to play the game in Czech)
=> 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 --- Comment #7 from Hans de Goede 2012-01-18 11:01:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Hans, it's completely fine if you base the packages on my work. But we still > need a plan Agreed we need a plan :) , because the patches are still not complete, my sigil patchset > needs to be updated for the external FlightCrew and all patches submitted > upstream. There is a good chance he will accept the patches after reading the > answer to the Debian guys. And the main remaining issue is the modified > libtidy, but IMHO the changes are not very intrusive and should be > upstreamable. Another issue is packaging FlightCrew in such way that it will > also provide XercesExtensions as a library. Any ideas are welcome :-) > > So let's start with me submitting ZipArchive as a standalone package. Then do > FlightCrew and finally Sigil itself. I've just submitted a ZipArchive package based on your work for review, see bug 782823. Here are the changes from your version: * Thu Jan 12 2012 Hans de Goede - 4.1.1-4 - Make -devel package Requires on main package include isa - Drop buildroot and defattr boilerplate (no longer needed with recent rpm) - Fix building with gcc-4.7 - Fix various rpmlint warnings I'm now working on making the FlightCrew package provide both XercesExtensions and zipios as libraries, since both are duplicated in Sigil itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755484] Review Request: maven-toolchains-plugin - Maven plugin for sharing configuration across projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755484 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-01-18 11:01:59 --- Comment #9 from Tomas Radej 2012-01-18 11:01:59 EST --- Thank you. Package's in, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782823] New: Review Request: ZipArchive - Library for accessing zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ZipArchive - Library for accessing zip files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782823 Summary: Review Request: ZipArchive - Library for accessing zip files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hdego...@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://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/ZipArchive.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/ZipArchive-4.1.1-4.fc15.src.rpm Description: The ZipArchive library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751172] Review Request: cumin - management console for Red Hat MRG grid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751172 Bug 751172 depends on bug 751344, which changed state. Bug 751344 Summary: Review Request: sesame - Red Hat MRG management system agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751344 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751344] Review Request: sesame - Red Hat MRG management system agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751344 Trevor McKay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-01-18 10:55:26 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751172] Review Request: cumin - management console for Red Hat MRG grid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751172 Trevor McKay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-01-18 10:54:56 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730233] Review Request: jboss-jaxrpc-1.1-api - Java API for XML-Based RPC (JAX-RPC) 1.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730233 --- Comment #11 from Richard Fontana 2012-01-18 10:40:38 EST --- Hi, FE-Legal flag will not be lifted yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781687] Review Request: lv2-ui - an extension of the LV2 audio plugin framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781687
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hdego...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede 2012-01-18 10:07:42 EST
---
Hi Brendan, Orcan.
Orcan, Brendan asked me to take a look at this as part of a review swap, but it
seems you're already reviewing this one, so I guess I'll tackle the next one.
But since I'm here anyways and I've already taken a quick peek already I would
like to throw in my 2 cents:
My comments are based on:
http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/spec/lv2-ui-2.4-2.fc16.src.rpm
My main concern with the current package is that there are several directory
ownership issues. First of all looking at the main package I see:
%files
%doc NEWS
%dir %{_libdir}/lv2/ui.lv2
%{_libdir}/lv2/ui.lv2/manifest.ttl
%{_libdir}/lv2/ui.lv2/ui.ttl
%{_libdir}/lv2/ui.lv2/%{name}.doap.ttl
But who owns %{_libdir}/lv2 ? The answer to that is probably lv2core, but if
that is the case then the main package should have a Requires: lv2core, because
otherwise this package may end up getting installed without lv2core, and then
on removal the %{_libdir}/lv2 will stay behind.
Then we have the %files section for the -devel package:
%files devel
%dir %{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/extensions
%{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/extensions/ui
%{_libdir}/lv2/ui.lv2/ui.h
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/lv2-lv2plug.in-ns-extensions-ui.pc
Which brings many questions with it, first of all which package owns
%{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns ? The answer seems to be lv2core-devel, which
means that the -devel sub package should have a Requires: lv2core-devel.
Then comes the question, should we have all extensions owning
%dir %{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/extensions
I don't think that is a good idea, I think that instead lv2core-devel should
own this, simply add a:
mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/extensions
to its %build and a
%dir %{_includedir}/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/extensions
to its "%files devel"
Looking into the includes a bit further I noticed some weird things with
lv2core:
# rpm -ql lv2core | grep lv2.h
/usr/lib64/lv2/lv2core.lv2/lv2.h
# rpm -ql lv2core-devel | grep lv2.h
/usr/include/lv2.h
These are 2 copies of the same file, installed by different (sub) packages,
this
seems wrong I think it would be better to make one of them a symlink.
I'm also wondering what a C header file is doing in the main package of
lv2core?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782786 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-01-18 09:44:10 EST --- This looks interesting, even though I'm a full-time LyX user. I'll do the review this evening. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768183] Review Request: is-interface - library for the information system in wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 09:36:28 EST --- is-interface-1.12.1-6.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/is-interface-1.12.1-6.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768183] Review Request: is-interface - library for the information system in wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 09:40:13 EST --- gridftp-ifce-2.1.3-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gridftp-ifce-2.1.3-4.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768183] Review Request: is-interface - library for the information system in wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 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 768183] Review Request: is-interface - library for the information system in wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 09:38:57 EST --- is-interface-1.12.1-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/is-interface-1.12.1-6.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 781458] Review Request: libteam - Library for controlling team network device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781458 Jiri Pirko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #10 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr 2012-01-18 09:21:18 EST --- Hello, New upstream git version. As usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git4bc2de2.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git8149a27.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-99-g4bc2de2.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comment are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781458] Review Request: libteam - Library for controlling team network device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781458 --- Comment #2 from Jiri Pirko 2012-01-18 09:15:27 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpirko/libteam_v2/libteam.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpirko/libteam_v2/libteam-0.1-1.20120113git302672e.fc16.src.rpm I hope I fixed that all. Except: I do not want to put configs into /etc/. Their purpose is solely to act as examples. The plan is to put config json text directly into ifcfg scripts in future. Thanks Dan! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768183] Review Request: is-interface - library for the information system in wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-18 08:37:03 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709290] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-http10 - Legacy HTTP/1.0 support for LWP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709290 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-18 08:35:03 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-18 08:34:10 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] New: Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782786 Summary: Review Request: equalx - LaTeX Equation Editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: martin.giesek...@uos.de 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://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/equalx.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/equalx-0.5.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: EqualX is an application that helps you write equations in LaTeX and preview them in real-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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782178 Thibault North changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thibault.no...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thibault.no...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722640] Review Request: R-qcc - SQC package for R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722640 --- Comment #21 from John J. McDonough 2012-01-18 07:24:48 EST --- Now begging for karma https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-qcc-2.2-3.fc16?_csrf_token=587db8c484d9caafe6e6196746505274d5c554ff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Thomas Moschny 2012-01-18 07:09:51 EST --- Thanks for the review! I think I will change the order of the Requires and BuildRequires lines. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: duply Short Description: Wrapper for duplicity Owners: thm Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 Mario Santagiuliana changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 --- Comment #12 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-01-18 06:36:18 EST --- Thomas, I ask a second opinion (thanks mrunge), I am too critical with you :) Package is finally ACCEPTED Thank you -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 Mario Santagiuliana changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@marionline.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 781458] Review Request: libteam - Library for controlling team network device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781458 --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák 2012-01-18 06:27:08 EST --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: BAD source files match upstream: BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (LGPLv2+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. BAD BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. BAD package builds in mock (Rawhide/i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with correct scriptlets OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage OK pkgconfig files in devel subpackage OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - sources are a git snapshot without an instruction how to obtain it (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control) - python subpackage should be named python-libteam (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29) - swig is missing in BRs - shouldn't a default teamd config file be packaged under /etc, maybe as %ghost-ed file? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234
--- Comment #11 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-01-18
06:19:59 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint duply-1.5.5.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
duply.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone
duply.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
duply.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> back ends,
back-ends, backhands
duply.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ftplicity -> duplicity
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint duply-1.5.5.4-1.fc17.src.rpm
duply.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone
duply.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
duply.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> back ends,
back-ends, backhands
duply.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ftplicity -> duplicity
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/makerpm/675234/duply_1.5.5.4.tgz :
MD5SUM this package : d72862e0294c50cd3a98249981d689c1
MD5SUM upstream package : d72862e0294c50cd3a98249981d689c1
[!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[-]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: S
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 Mario Santagiuliana changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 Mario Santagiuliana changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675234] Review Request: duply - Wrapper for duplicity
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675234 --- Comment #10 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-01-18 05:24:20 EST --- Ok, I take the review of this package, I will ask a second quickly review to fedora-devel team just to be sure of my job ok? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768310] Review Request: gridftp-ifce - GridFTP abstraction layer for wlcg.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768310 adev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-01-18 05:19:17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768174] Review Request: srm-ifce - Storage Resources Manager client implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768174 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 05:01:59 EST --- srm-ifce-1.12-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/srm-ifce-1.12-5.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 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 #17 from Michael Scherer 2012-01-18 04:53:34 EST --- Go for it, I never did a review, so someone would have to check in the end :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768174] Review Request: srm-ifce - Storage Resources Manager client implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768174 adev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-01-18 04:51:54 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768174] Review Request: srm-ifce - Storage Resources Manager client implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768174 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 04:47:31 EST --- srm-ifce-1.12-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/srm-ifce-1.12-5.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768174] Review Request: srm-ifce - Storage Resources Manager client implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768174 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 768174] Review Request: srm-ifce - Storage Resources Manager client implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768174 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-18 04:46:16 EST --- srm-ifce-1.12-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/srm-ifce-1.12-5.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 730233] Review Request: jboss-jaxrpc-1.1-api - Java API for XML-Based RPC (JAX-RPC) 1.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730233 --- Comment #10 from Tomas Radej 2012-01-18 03:45:35 EST --- I think you need to send Richard an e-mail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #16 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-18 03:35:45 EST --- I'll do a formal review later on today, unless you want to take it Michael. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
