[Bug 239200] Review Request: onesixtyone - An efficient SNMP scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239200 Michal Ambroz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||re...@seznam.cz Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Michal Ambroz 2012-01-20 03:25:06 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: onesixtyone New Branches: f17 f16 Owners: rebus InitialCC: [add any required explanatory text here] Hello, I took over the ownership of the package and I would like to build it for Fedora 16/17 and keep it maintained for EL 5/6 Thank you Michal Ambroz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 766622] Review Request: perl-Authen-Credential - Abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766622 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 766622] Review Request: perl-Authen-Credential - Abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766622 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-20 04:15:50 EST --- perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.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 766622] Review Request: perl-Authen-Credential - Abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766622 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-20 04:16:02 EST --- perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 766622] Review Request: perl-Authen-Credential - Abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766622 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-20 04:15:40 EST --- perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.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 #25 from Christophe Fergeau 2012-01-20 04:19:09 EST --- Uploaded a -3 package with this fix at http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-boxes/gnome-boxes-3.3.4-2.fc16.src.rpm , .spec at the usual URL has been updated too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #26 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-20 04:37:59 EST --- Assuming you meant http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-boxes/gnome-boxes-3.3.4-3.fc16.src.rpm (added so the review script picks it up) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Hans de Goede 2012-01-20 04:41:34 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ZipArchive Short Description: The ZipArchive library Owners: jwrdegoede sharkcz Branches: f16 InitialCC: Danny, thanks for the review! I'll improve the description after the initial import into git. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783400] New: Review Request: rubygem-test_declarative - Simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-test_declarative - Simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783400 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-test_declarative - Simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bkab...@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: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/test_declarative/rubygem-test_declarative.spec SRPM: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/test_declarative/rubygem-test_declarative-0.0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Koji: koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3717122 Test declarative simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783400] Review Request: rubygem-test_declarative - Simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783400 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch 2012-01-20 04:55:12 EST --- I am taking this for a review since it is rubygem-i18n dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 #27 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-20 05:03:31 EST
---
Here's the updated review script output:
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.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[ ]: 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 contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: 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
[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.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint gnome-boxes-debuginfo-3.3.4-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint gnome-boxes-3.3.4-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm
gnome-boxes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-boxes
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint gnome-boxes-3.3.4-3.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: 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 : 2e203398f1912ddc47ba86ea7514d12e
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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
[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 AssignedTo|oget.fed...@gmail.com |hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Hans de Goede 2012-01-20 05:19:44 EST --- Sorry Orcan, but since I've come this far anyway I'm going to steal this review from you. I think there will be plenty of other lv2 packages for you to review instead :) So here is the result of a full review: Good: - rpmlint checks return: lv2-ui.x86_64: E: no-binary lv2-ui.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib lv2-ui-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation lv2-ui-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/include/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/extensions/ui ../../../../../lib64/lv2/ui.lv2 These can all be ignored. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (ISC) OK, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Must Fix - owns all directories that it creates As discussed before, you need to Add Requires: lv2core to the main package and Requires: lv2core-devel to the -devel package for proper directory ownership handling Should Fix -- - remove "Requires: pkgconfig" from the -devel pkg, having explict Requires on pkgconfig is no longer needed these days (rpm autogenerates them). Regards, Hans -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #28 from Christophe Fergeau 2012-01-20 05:25:34 EST --- http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-boxes/gnome-boxes-3.3.4-4.fc16.src.rpm * Fri Jan 20 2012 Christophe Fergeau - 3.3.4-4 - call desktop-file-validate in %%install. gnome-boxes upstream installs a .desktop file on its own so desktop-file-validate is enough, no need to call desktop-file-install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783317] Review Request: akonadi-google - Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783317 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #11 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-20 05:27:41 EST --- Appreciate the review Hans, here's an update with suggested fixes. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/spec/lv2-ui.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/spec/lv2-ui-2.4-4.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 783400] Review Request: rubygem-test_declarative - Simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783400 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch 2012-01-20 05:33:10 EST --- I was trying hardly to find any issue, however, in such simply package it turned out to be impossible => the package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728504] Review Request: jboss-sasl - SASL Provider for J2SE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728504 --- Comment #8 from Marek Goldmann 2012-01-20 05:37:02 EST --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-sasl/6/jboss-sasl.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-sasl/6/jboss-sasl-1.0.0-0.2.Beta9.fc17.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 783400] Review Request: rubygem-test_declarative - Simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783400 Bohuslav Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Kabrda 2012-01-20 05:35:47 EST --- Sorry, I will make at least one mistake next time. Anyway, thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-test_declarative Short Description: Test declarative simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit Owners: bkabrda Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review- --- Comment #29 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-20 05:39:47 EST --- Okay, good. Thanks for your patience with the review. 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 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 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 728504] Review Request: jboss-sasl - SASL Provider for J2SE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728504 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Alexander Kurtakov 2012-01-20 05:53:57 EST --- 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 783414] Review Request: python-rdfextras - Python library for working with RDF
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783414 --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon 2012-01-20 05:57:12 EST --- scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3717266 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783414] New: Review Request: python-rdfextras - Python library for working with RDF
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-rdfextras - Python library for working with RDF https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783414 Summary: Review Request: python-rdfextras - Python library for working with RDF Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pin...@pingoured.fr 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://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs//python-rdfextras.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs//python-rdfextras-0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: RDFExtras is a collection of packages providing extras based on RDFLib. The common denominator is "non-core-rdflib". This project is for collecting several packages with distinct uses, such as commandline tools, experimental (or unmaintained) stores and similar. It will be close to RDFLib, but the intent is to keep things here a bit more loose. These packages are thus to be considered unstable in general. Useful, sometimes near core, but not currently guaranteed to never be renamed/reshuffled/redesigned. (For instance, there are currently non-commandline utils in " rdfextras.tools" that may be subsequently moved to e.g. "rdfextras.util", "rdfextras.web" or similar.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753354] Review Request: strongswan - IKEv1 and IKEv2 daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753354 --- Comment #8 from Ondrej Vasik 2012-01-20 05:58:10 EST --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD (BAD*) statuses below: OK source files match upstream: sha256sum strongswan-4.6.1.tar.gz : d750ec16bc32c3d7f41fdbc7ac376defb1acde9f4d95d32052cdb15488ca3c34 strongswan-4.6.1.tar.gz One comment here - is there any reason for shipping .tar.gz sources? I see upstream provides .tar.bz2 as well, which is about 30% smaller. sha256sum strongswan-4.6.1.tar.bz2 : 3d6dcdb3ce46dab51783b98c9bb54ebc931ff80941a0507d3cf3e3ac813eb439 strongswan-4.6.1.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. BAD license field matches the actual license. Still GPL - You should use GPLv2+ BAD license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text included in package. at least %doc COPYING README is missing (maybe even NEWS could be helpful) OK latest version is being packaged. Only developer version for 4.6.2 available atm. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. BAD shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with correct scriptlets %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig is missing ... package adds some shared libraries ... Idea - would it make sense to move them into -libs subpackage? BAD owns the directories it creates. /usr/libexec/ipsec/ , /usr/lib/ipsec/ , /usr/lib/ipsec/plugins directories are added but not owned. 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. rpmlint output: strongswan.i686: W: invalid-license GPL Use GPLv2+ strongswan.i686: E: non-readable /etc/strongswan.conf 0640L Really strange permissions for the configure file... Is that intentional? I would recommend changing to 644... strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/strongswan.conf.5.gz 27: warning: `EX' not defined strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/strongswan.conf.5.gz 31: warning: `EE' not defined strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/strongswan.conf.5.gz 141: warning: `TQ' not defined strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/strongswan.conf.5.gz 1274: warning: `UR' not defined strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/strongswan.conf.5.gz 1276: warning: `UE' not defined strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/ipsec.conf.5.gz 1370: warning: `EX' not defined strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/ipsec.conf.5.gz 1372: warning: `EE' not defined strongswan.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/ipsec.secrets.5.gz 135: warning: `TQ' not defined Please check the manpages, it seems they are not completely gramatically correct. strongswan.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary strongswan I guess this is caused by incomplete renaming binary from ipsec to strongswan... please adjust the fix... 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. Small comments: There are trailing spaces in the spec file in %post section When building on RHEL it would emit also warning about empty sections of post/postun ... but this is something what could be solved later (you want this package in epel6, so it would probably be better if you do that soon) Please fix the issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Hans de Goede 2012-01-20 06:03:58 EST --- Looks good now, 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 728504] Review Request: jboss-sasl - SASL Provider for J2SE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728504 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Marek Goldmann 2012-01-20 06:02:00 EST --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-sasl Short Description: SASL Provider for J2SE Owners:goldmann Branches: f17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #14 from Gregor Tätzner 2012-01-20 06:15:08 EST --- Cool Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/kde-plasma-publictransport.spec SRPM Url: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/kde-plasma-publictransport-0.10-0.4.20111204git.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 783148] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Moose - Policies for Perl::Critic concerned with using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783148 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783149] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Resolver - Non-blocking getaddrinfo() resolver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783149
--- Comment #5 from Petr Šabata 2012-01-20 06:21:03 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I see. Resuming.
>
> No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
>
> FIX: Remove perl(POE::Filter::Reference) from build-requires or make it
> run-time dependency too (lib/POE/Component/Resolver.pm:219).
> FIX: Remove perl(POE::Filter::Reference) from build-requires or make it
> run-time dependency too (lib/POE/Component/Resolver.pm:218).
>
I've added POE::Filter::Reference and POE::Wheel::Run (which is what you meant,
I suppose) to Requires.
> TODO: Remove `perl(Scalar::Util) >= 1.23' from run-time dependencies. It's
> used
> obviously nowhere in the code.
Removed.
> FIX: Build-Require `perl(POE::Component::Resolver::Sidecar)' for tests
> (lib/POE/Component/Resolver.pm:15).
Won't do. It's is provided by this package.
>
> FIX: Package does not build in F17
> (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3715139).
> It looks like of-by-one error if $#got_families == 1 at $i declaration:
>
> my $i = $#got_families;
> while ($i--) {
> splice(@got_families, $i, 1) if (
> → $got_families[$i] == $got_families[$i+1]
> );
> }
>
This test fails only in koji; the package works fine and all test pass in mock.
I've disabled the failing test for now.
--
Again, the updated package in available on the same URLs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783317] Review Request: akonadi-google - Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783317 Radek Novacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rnova...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rnova...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Radek Novacek 2012-01-20 06:27:34 EST --- Name: ok License: ok Source: It should be stated clearly in the comment in specfile how can be the tarball obtained from git BRs/Reqs: see below Macros used consistently: ok ldconfig: ok Desktop file validations: NA Locales: NA Docs: install at least README to %doc. According to guidelines you should also ping upstream to add license to tarball. Devel: ok Files: ok Build: ok rpmlint: no need to fix ./akonadi-google.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: akonadi-google-0.2-git754771b.tar.gz akonadi-google-calendar.x86_64: W: no-documentation akonadi-google-calendar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary akonadi_googlecalendar_resource akonadi-google-contacts.x86_64: W: no-documentation akonadi-google-contacts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary akonadi_googlecontacts_resource akonadi-google-tasks.x86_64: W: no-documentation akonadi-google-tasks.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary akonadi_googletasks_resource libkgoogle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) akonadi -> Kodiak libkgoogle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) google -> Google, goggle, googly libkgoogle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US akonadi -> Kodiak libkgoogle-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google, goggle, googly libkgoogle-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation I have some comments to subpackages, its only my recommendations, I'm open to other suggestions: * contacts, calendar and tasks subpackage should Require: libkgoogle subpackage with same version to prevent breakage on API/ABI change * I would let the base package empty and add Requires to all subpackages (except devel). This makes it easier for user to install all of them at once. Add section %files without any content to generate base package too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-20 06:33:31 EST --- Thanks again. Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lv2-ui Short Description: An extension of the LV2 audio plugin framework Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781870] Review Request: sord - A lightweight C library for storing RDF in memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781870
Gregor Tätzner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Gregor Tätzner 2012-01-20 06:42:51 EST
---
Review:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
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 primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[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 License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/greg/projects/Review/781870/sord-0.5.0.tar.bz2 :
MD5SUM this package : 317ece12d3e69e7e789e941da4e7fd6b
MD5SUM upstream package : 317ece12d3e69e7e789e941da4e7fd6b
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
[Bug 781685] Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-20 07:13:10 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: serd Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 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 781870] Review Request: sord - A lightweight C library for storing RDF in memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781870 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-20 07:12:53 EST --- Thanks Greg! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sord Short Description: A lightweight Resource Description Framework (RDF) library. Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783148] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Moose - Policies for Perl::Critic concerned with using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783148
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata 2012-01-20 07:13:35 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 primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[!]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/783148/Perl-Critic-Moose-0.999_002.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 0f97e0fd5977eb67389b17080b648de0
MD5SUM upstream package : 0f97e0fd5977eb67389b17080b648de0
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[!]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
--
NITPICK: Perl::Critic::Violation is only used in tests; I'd move it below line
19 and remove the minimum version requirement.
FIX: Remove English from BRs; it's not an independent package.
TODO: Remove Readonly from Requires; it's automatically picked up by rpmbuild.
FIX: Final RPM provides different module versions (0.999); I think those should
be corrected to 0.999.002.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 783317] Review Request: akonadi-google - Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783317 --- Comment #2 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-01-20 07:34:25 EST --- Spec URL: http://marionline.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/akonadi-google.spec SRPM URL: http://marionline.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/akonadi-google-0.2-10.20120120git11bf6ad.fc16.src.rpm Changelog is: - Update Specfile with comment #1 - Update to git snapshot 11bf6ad40dd93eda1f880a99d592009ea3ff47ac - Include LICENSE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783317] Review Request: akonadi-google - Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783317 Radek Novacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Radek Novacek 2012-01-20 07:54:24 EST --- Thanks for fixing all the issues. Setting fedora-review+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783317] Review Request: akonadi-google - Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783317 --- Comment #4 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-01-20 07:59:16 EST --- Thank you Radek for your 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 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 #14 from Orcan Ogetbil 2012-01-20 08:00:33 EST --- It's okay Hans. I was saving it for the weekend since I did not have time. I am glad you finished it. Cheers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783317] Review Request: akonadi-google - Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783317 Mario Santagiuliana changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-01-20 08:03:13 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: akonadi-google Short Description: Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services Owners: marionline Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783414] Review Request: python-rdfextras - Python library for working with RDF
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783414 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700818] Review Request: libircclient - Library implementing client-server IRC protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700818 --- Comment #11 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-20 08:30:35 EST --- Update to new upstream release 1.5 at: http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libircclient/libircclient.spec http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libircclient/libircclient-1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm The patches to fix those warnings don't seem to be necessary any more so I've disabled them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783149] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Resolver - Non-blocking getaddrinfo() resolver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783149
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar 2012-01-20 08:28:55 EST ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-POE-Component-Resolver.spec.old2012-01-19 15:19:28.0
+0100
+++ perl-POE-Component-Resolver.spec2012-01-20 12:17:43.0 +0100
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/POE-Component-Resolver/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RC/RCAPUTO/POE-Component-Resolver-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch
+BuildRequires: perl(base)
BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
@@ -20,7 +21,8 @@
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) >= 0.96
BuildRequires: perl(Time::HiRes) >= 1.9711
Requires: perl(POE) >= 1.311
-Requires: perl(Scalar::Util) >= 1.23
+Requires: perl(POE::Filter::Reference)
+Requires: perl(POE::Wheel::Run)
Requires: perl(Socket::GetAddrInfo) >= 0.19
Requires: perl(Storable) >= 2.18
Requires: perl(Time::HiRes) >= 1.9711
@@ -28,7 +30,6 @@
%{?perl_default_filter}
%global __requires_exclude
%{?__requires_exclude:__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(POE\\)
-%global __requires_exclude %__requires_exclude|^perl\\(Scalar::Util\\)
%global __requires_exclude %__requires_exclude|^perl\\(Socket::GetAddrInfo\\)
%global __requires_exclude %__requires_exclude|^perl\\(Storable\\)
%global __requires_exclude %__requires_exclude|^perl\\(Time::HiRes\\)
@@ -51,10 +52,12 @@
%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
%check
+# Remove resolver test which doesn't work in koji
+rm -f t/01-basic.t
make test
%files
-%doc CHANGES LICENSE README README.mkdn
+%doc CHANGES LICENSE README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
> TODO: BuildRequire `perl(base)' for tests (lib/POE/Component/Resolver.pm:18)
+BuildRequires: perl(base)
Ok.
> TODO: Package only README or only REAMDE.mkdn. Their identical but formatting.
%files
-%doc CHANGES LICENSE README README.mkdn
+%doc CHANGES LICENSE README
Ok.
> FIX: Remove perl(POE::Filter::Reference) from build-requires or make it
> run-time dependency too (lib/POE/Component/Resolver.pm:219).
> FIX: Remove perl(POE::Filter::Reference) from build-requires or make it
> run-time dependency too (lib/POE/Component/Resolver.pm:218).
+Requires: perl(POE::Filter::Reference)
+Requires: perl(POE::Wheel::Run)
Ok.
> TODO: Remove `perl(Scalar::Util) >= 1.23' from run-time dependencies. It's
> used obviously nowhere in the code.
-Requires: perl(Scalar::Util) >= 1.23
Ok.
> > FIX: Build-Require `perl(POE::Component::Resolver::Sidecar)' for tests
> > (lib/POE/Component/Resolver.pm:15).
> Won't do. It's is provided by this package.
You are right. Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-POE-Component-Resolver.spec
../SRPMS/perl-POE-Component-Resolver-0.914-1.fc17.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-POE-Component-Resolver-0.914-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) getaddrinfo
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
GetAddrInfo
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
getaddrinfo
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
subprocesses -> sub processes, sub-processes, processes
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
getaddrinfo
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
GetAddrInfo
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
getaddrinfo
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
subprocesses -> sub processes, sub-processes, processes
perl-POE-Component-Resolver.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-POE-Component-Resolver-0.914/LICENSE
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
> TODO: Remove `perl(Scalar::Util) >= 1.23' from run-time dependencies. It's
> used
> obviously nowhere in the code.
$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-POE-Component-Resolver-0.914-1.fc17.noarch.rpm | sort |uniq
-c
1 perl(base)
1 perl(bytes)
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(Config)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
1 perl(POE) >= 1.311
1 perl(POE::Component::Resolver::Sidecar)
1 perl(POE::Filter::Reference)
1 perl(POE::Wheel::Run)
1 perl(Socket)
1 perl(Socket::GetAddrInfo) >= 0.19
1 perl(Storable) >= 2.18
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(Time::HiRes) >= 1.9711
1 perl(warnings)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #84 from Rosen Diankov 2012-01-20 08:38:19 EST --- openrave 0.5.0 was just officially released. several bugs were fixed in the last 48 hours, so i recommend you create new rpms with the following code: https://openrave.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/openrave/tags/0.5.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783149] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Resolver - Non-blocking getaddrinfo() resolver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783149 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Petr Šabata 2012-01-20 08:38:31 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-POE-Component-Resolver Short Description: Non-blocking getaddrinfo() resolver Owners: psabata mmaslano ppisar Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783454] New: Review Request: perl-URI-Title - Get the titles of things on the web in a sensible way
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-URI-Title - Get the titles of things on the web in a sensible way https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783454 Summary: Review Request: perl-URI-Title - Get the titles of things on the web in a sensible way Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psab...@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://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-URI-Title/perl-URI-Title.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-URI-Title/perl-URI-Title-1.85-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: I keep having to find the title of things on the web. This seems like a really simple request, just get() the object, parse for a title tag, you're done. Ha, I wish. There are several problems with this approach: What if the resource is on a very slow server? Do we wait forever or what? What if the resource is a 900 gig file? You don't want to download that. What if the page title isn't in a title tag, but is buried in the HTML somewhere? What if the resource is an MP3 file, or a word document or something? ... So, let's solve these issues once. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 08:53:45 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 239200] Review Request: onesixtyone - An efficient SNMP scanner
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239200 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 08:51:00 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Created f16, f17==devel and already exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728504] Review Request: jboss-sasl - SASL Provider for J2SE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728504 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 08:51:53 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). f17==devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] Review Request: equalx - A graphical editor for writing LaTeX equations
Please do not reply directly 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 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: equalx -|Review Request: equalx - A |LaTeX Equation Editor |graphical editor for ||writing LaTeX equations Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking 2012-01-20 08:51:25 EST --- Great. Thank you again for the review, Jussi. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: equalx Short Description: A graphical editor for writing LaTeX equations Owners: mgieseki 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 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 #15 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 08:58:52 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781685] Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 08:57:30 EST --- Do you want f16 as well? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783456] New: Review Request: perl-URI-Find-Simple - Simple interface to URI::Find
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-URI-Find-Simple - Simple interface to URI::Find https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783456 Summary: Review Request: perl-URI-Find-Simple - Simple interface to URI::Find Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: psab...@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://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-URI-Find-Simple/perl-URI-Find-Simple.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-URI-Find-Simple/perl-URI-Find-Simple-1.03-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: URI::Find is all very well, but sometimes you just want a list of the links in a given piece of text, or you want to change all the URLs in some text somehow, and don't want to mess with callback interfaces. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783148] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Moose - Policies for Perl::Critic concerned with using Moose
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783148 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar 2012-01-20 08:56:33 EST --- > NITPICK: Perl::Critic::Violation is only used in tests; I'd move it below line > 19 and remove the minimum version requirement. Moved. I kept the version as this is prescribed by META.yml. > FIX: Remove English from BRs; it's not an independent package. Done. > TODO: Remove Readonly from Requires; it's automatically picked up by rpmbuild. Of course. > FIX: Final RPM provides different module versions (0.999); I think those > should > be corrected to 0.999.002. Well, I don't think this is necessary because they should $VERSION numbers if possible (requires are generated in the same way), I implemented it. Updated package is on the same address. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781870] Review Request: sord - A lightweight C library for storing RDF in memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781870 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 09:02:08 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783135] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Itch - Collection of Perl::Critic policies to solve some itches
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783135 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] Review Request: equalx - A graphical editor for writing LaTeX equations
Please do not reply directly 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 #8 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 09:15:31 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 783149] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Resolver - Non-blocking getaddrinfo() resolver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783149 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 09:10:37 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 783317] Review Request: akonadi-google - Akonadi Resources for accessing Google services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783317 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 09:12:00 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783400] Review Request: rubygem-test_declarative - Simply adds a declarative test method syntax to test/unit.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783400 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 09:13:41 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 783149] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Resolver - Non-blocking getaddrinfo() resolver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783149 --- Comment #9 from Petr Šabata 2012-01-20 09:33:09 EST --- Thank you, guys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783149] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Resolver - Non-blocking getaddrinfo() resolver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783149 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-POE-Component-Resolver ||-0.914-1.fc17 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-01-20 09:39:51 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781685] Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Brendan Jones 2012-01-20 09:38:03 EST --- Sorry, yes. F16 has already been created. Am I going about this the right way? Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: serd Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226283] Merge Review: perl-URI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226283 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar 2012-01-20 09:44:05 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-URI Branches: f15 f16 Owners: InitialCC: perl-sig Please add perl-sig user with watch* permissions only to all Fedora branches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782786] Review Request: equalx - A graphical editor for writing LaTeX equations
Please do not reply directly 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 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 782786] Review Request: equalx - A graphical editor for writing LaTeX equations
Please do not reply directly 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 #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-20 09:47:35 EST --- equalx-0.5.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/equalx-0.5.1-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226283] Merge Review: perl-URI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226283 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 09:54:58 EST --- Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783135] Review Request: perl-Perl-Critic-Itch - Collection of Perl::Critic policies to solve some itches
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783135
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata 2012-01-20 09:58:22 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 primary architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: 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.
[?]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/783135/Perl-Critic-Itch-0.07.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : e4844a86af93478f8e13da39b4d54833
MD5SUM upstream package : e4844a86af93478f8e13da39b4d54833
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
--
FIX: Remove English from BRs, it's not an independent module.
FIX: Add Perl::Critic::Policy to BR
(lib/Perl/Critic/Policy/CodeLayout/ProhibitHashBarewords.pm:6)
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for 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 Christophe Fergeau changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #30 from Christophe Fergeau 2012-01-20 09:58:23 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-boxes Short Description: A simple GNOME 3 application to access remote or virtual systems Owners: teuf elmarco zeenix Branches: InitialCC: teuf elmarco zeenix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781685] Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 10:05:27 EST --- No, the tools we use handle this differently, submit a Package Change Request for just f15. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #31 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 10:03:33 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783483] Review Request: kdelibs-apidocs - KDELibs API documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783483 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||765955(kde-4.8), ||656997(kde-reviews) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783483] New: Review Request: kdelibs-apidocs - KDELibs API documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: kdelibs-apidocs - KDELibs API documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783483 Summary: Review Request: kdelibs-apidocs - KDELibs API documentation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdelibs-apidocs/kdelibs-apidocs.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdelibs-apidocs/kdelibs-apidocs-4.7-1.20120118.fc16.src.rpm Description: This package includes the KDELibs 4 API documentation in HTML format for easy browsing. This is currently (re)generated as part of every kdelibs build, wasting resources on builders, infrastructure, and mirrors. We'll instead package this largish package separately, using upstream pregenerated documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #106 from Stijn Hoop 2012-01-20 10:40:08 EST --- Just FYI, the stack trace bits appear to have been commited to be part of boost 1.49.0 (at least the more generic version as mentioned by Brett Lentz): https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2741#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 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #4 from leigh scott 2012-01-20 11:12:09 EST --- New build SPEC: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon/3/cinnamon.spec SRPM: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon/3/cinnamon-1.1.4-0.1.git37e1dc9.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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #107 from John Florian 2012-01-20 11:14:47 EST --- I'm glad to hear progress is being made here on this as I'm really hoping Passenger will make my puppet server scale to bigger loads better. Can someone here that is more familiar with all the gory details of getting Passenger into Fedora give me some kind of estimate of how close we are now? Are these recent gains that have been announced just a few of many more that will have to be gained or do they represent some of the final bits falling into place? Are we 25%, 50%, 75% or 99.8% the way there? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772710] Review Request: pkpgcounter - Computes number of pages or quantity of ink needed to print documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772710 Tim Waugh changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|twa...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772710] Review Request: pkpgcounter - Computes number of pages or quantity of ink needed to print documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772710
Tim Waugh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tim Waugh 2012-01-20 12:01:31 EST ---
[ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary
rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package
Naming Guidelines .
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an
exemption.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.
[ OK ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of
the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing
the text of the license(s) for the package must be included
in %doc.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the
upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[ OK ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or
work on an architecture, then those architectures should be
listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of
the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as
BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores
shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the
dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post
and %postun.
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the
packager must state this fact in the request for review,
along with the rationalization for relocation of that
specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it
does not create a directory that it uses, then it should
require a package which does create that directory.
[ OK ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in
the spec file's %files listings.
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is
in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] 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
(e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so
(without suffix) 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 dependency:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already
owned by other packages.
[ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package
spec file should contain translations for supported
Non-English languages, if available
[Bug 743612] Review Request: lbdb - collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743612 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer 2012-01-20 12:24:29 EST --- A few remark : - patchs are not commented, and I think they should explain why they are here, and if pushed upstream or not - Buildroot: should be removed - I think %defattr is deprecated as well - %dist is missing from release I am not sure that the authors name and the setup instruction belong to %description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #108 from Brett Lentz 2012-01-20 12:55:46 EST --- John - I believe there are three modifications that Passenger has done to the base Boost libraries. Two of these three have been upstreamed, and we're actively working on getting the third modification ready for upstreaming. However, one of the two upstreamed changes was addressed with a more generic patch, and will require modifications to how Passenger handles that particular detail. I can't provide any specific estimates on when Passenger will land in Fedora. However, I can say that we're actively working on 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 766622] Review Request: perl-Authen-Credential - Abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766622 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-20 13:01:44 EST --- perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 430603] Review Request: clex - A free file manager with a full-screen user interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430603 Nathan Owe changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro|ndowen...@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 430603] Review Request: clex - A free file manager with a full-screen user interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430603 Nathan Owe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag|fedora-review+, fedora-cvs+ | Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #32 from Nathan Owe 2012-01-20 13:50:48 EST --- #fedora-devel said package needs to be re-reviewed since I am having issue with getting it to build for f16. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753354] Review Request: strongswan - IKEv1 and IKEv2 daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753354 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Simerda 2012-01-20 14:19:30 EST --- I forgot to add that I made some more changes to the directory structure and strongswan is now not in conflict with openswan. This is mostly important for testing, they are not intended to be used together, but at least you don't have go through repated install/remove cycle when testing or comparing these two. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753354] Review Request: strongswan - IKEv1 and IKEv2 daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753354 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Simerda 2012-01-20 14:16:54 EST --- Created attachment 556578 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=556578 New SRPM This is a new release with the following changes: All review comments incorporated except manual page errors that I'll be revisiting later. At least if I haven't missed something. Ad permissions: This is what we get from upstream. The reasoning about non-readable configuration files or even directories is usually that someone could use the configuration files to include e.g. encryption keys and forget to chmod the file. For now I'm switching it to 644 but I would like to have some discussion before we get it in Fedora. The question is, whether to hide IPsec configuration from ordinary users so that (a) they don't know what's configured and (b) the admin doesn't leak authentication keys by mistake. *If* we choose to protect the configuration, I would prefer the 'chmod -x /etc/strongswan/' way so we protect the whole directory. Ad manpages: Could you please tell me how do I get these warnings with rpmbuild? Where are they put, or is it just its output? I don't see them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753354] Review Request: strongswan - IKEv1 and IKEv2 daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753354 --- Comment #11 from Pavel Simerda 2012-01-20 14:31:16 EST --- Created attachment 556587 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=556587 New 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 783559] New: Review Request: pcs - Pacemaker Configuration System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pcs - Pacemaker Configuration System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783559 Summary: Review Request: pcs - Pacemaker Configuration System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cfe...@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.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs-0.9.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Command Line Interface for configuration pacemaker & corosync. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783559] Review Request: pcs - Pacemaker Configuration 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=783559 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783559] Review Request: pcs - Pacemaker Configuration 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=783559 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769450] Review Request: gap-table-of-marks - 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 Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table |gap-table-of-marks - GAP |of Marks package|Table of Marks 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 769450] Review Request: gap-table-of-marks - 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 #7 from Jerry James 2012-01-20 15:26:39 EST --- Oops. Sorry about that. Let's try this again. 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-table-of-marks - 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 #8 from Jon Ciesla 2012-01-20 15:34:27 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 783559] Review Request: pcs - Pacemaker Configuration 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=783559
--- Comment #1 from Steven Dake 2012-01-20 15:38:03 EST ---
1. python_sitelib macro is not necessary in Fedora - please remove it
2. Shouldn't group be in clustering?
3. BuildRoot is not necessary in Fedora - please remove it
4. clean section is not necessary in Fedora - please remove it
5. Why is there a %doc with no content?
6. A copyright isn't valid in the header of a SPEC file and may conflict. The
license of the spec file is governed by the CLA.
7. %{python_sitelib}/pcs/* is an unowned directory
Once you sort those things out, I'll do a MUST analysis.
Please take care to update the Release field to 2 and the changelog before
posting new spec/rpm.
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 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment 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=470696 --- Comment #109 from John Florian 2012-01-20 15:52:33 EST --- Brett, Thanks for that update and I really appreciate all the hours you and others are putting in to make this happen. I'm anxious to see how it will improve things but not so anxious that I have a need to wander outside of yum repos to find out. It sounds as though Boost is the big challenge ATM, although I also recall reading somewhere that there was a whole slew of other packages that would need to be brought into Fedora as well; hopefully those are all moving along well too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783414] Review Request: python-rdfextras - Python library for working with RDF
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783414
--- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar 2012-01-20 16:03:47
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 primary 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.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[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.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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 python-rdfextras-0.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
python-rdfextras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdflib ->
rifling
python-rdfextras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commandline ->
command line, command-line, commandment
python-rdfextras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmaintained
-> maintained, mountaineered, untainted
python-rdfextras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills
python-rdfextras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til,
until, u til
python-rdfextras.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-rdfextras.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rdfextras/tools/sparqler.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
python-rdfextras.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rdfextras/tools/rdfpipe.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
python-rdfextras.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rdfextras/sparql/parser.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
python-rdfextras.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdfpipe
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings.
rpmlint python-rdfextras-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
python-rdfextras.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdflib -> rifling
python-rdfextras.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commandline ->
command line, command-line, commandment
python-rdfextras.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmaintained ->
maintained, mountaineered, untainted
python-rdfextras.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills
python-rdfextras.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til,
until, u til
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/builder/783414/rdfextras-0.1.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 8bce3ae5cf7a1dbc42ebddadebd477a9
MD5SUM upstream package : 8bce3ae5cf7a1dbc42ebddadebd477a9
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Pack
[Bug 637352] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637352 --- Comment #14 from Germán Racca 2012-01-20 16:16:11 EST --- I'm very sorry Mario, but I'm not more interested in 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 783559] Review Request: pcs - Pacemaker Configuration 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=783559 --- Comment #2 from Chris Feist 2012-01-20 16:25:26 EST --- 1. Done 2. I put it in System Environment/Base because corosync and pacemaker are in System Environment/Base & System Environment/Daemons respectively. I don't believe a Clustering group exists. 3. Done 4. Done 5. Removed 6. Removed 7. Fixed New package and .spec http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs-0.9.0-2.fc16.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/pcs/pcs.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 769450] Review Request: gap-table-of-marks - 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 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 769450] Review Request: gap-table-of-marks - 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 #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-01-20 16:57:42 EST --- gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 637352] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637352 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-01-20 16:59:24 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
