[Bug 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 02:58:27 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: omniORB Short Description: A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python Owners: hguemar Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: hguemar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226274] Merge Review: perl-Parse-RecDescent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226274 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 03:57:54 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Parse-RecDescent New Branches: 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 784589] Review Request: ii - IRC IT, simple FIFO based IRC client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784589 --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 04:37:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (snip) [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. I'm not sure about that one: Public domain is probably compatible (as with the GPL) and you can re-license it as MIT. 'Public domain' is okay according to Fedora licensing [1]. I, as a distributor, don't plan to re-license upstream content. Let's leave that to users. (snip) [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. Not silent, but nothing to worry about. I've changed the spelling to 'file-system' since I had done other changes to upstream description too (like letter case). (snip) [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. It does -- try it, it's fun :) (snip) [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. The manpage looses its original timestamp. Fixed. -- [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786054] New: Review Request: python-django-nose - Django test runner that uses nose
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-django-nose - Django test runner that uses nose https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786054 Summary: Review Request: python-django-nose - Django test runner that uses nose Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mru...@matthias-runge.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-nose.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-nose-0.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Django test runner that uses nose. [mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-django-nose-0.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-django-nose-0.1.3-1.fc16.noarch.rpm ./python-django-nose.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji scratch-build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3748132 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786071] New: Review Request: ghc-feldspar-language - Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-feldspar-language - Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786071 Summary: Review Request: ghc-feldspar-language - Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shakthim...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ghc-feldspar-language.spec SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ghc-feldspar-language-0.4.0.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Feldspar (Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism) is an embedded DSL for describing digital signal processing algorithms. This package contains the language front-end and an interpreter -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786071] Review Request: ghc-feldspar-language - Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786071 --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 06:12:37 EST --- Successful Koji builds for F15, F16 and F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3747890 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3747891 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3747896 $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language-0.4.0.2-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language-0.4.0.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language-devel-0.4.0.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785943] Review Request: gunicorn - Python WSGI application server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785943 --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 06:29:16 EST --- - The package should be named python-gunicorn. - I think that Group: should be System Environment/Daemons, as it is with other web servers like apache or httpd (not sure if this can actually run as a daemon, but I suppose it can). - You should have BR: python2-devel according to [1]. - You should probably rather BR: python-setuptools than python-setuptools-devel: it seems to me, that the trend is to move to python-setuptools, as the package python-setuptools obsoletes python-setuptools-devel and only provides it for backward compatibility. - Otherwise the package looks good and also works, so as soon as you correct these issues, it can be approved. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784657] Review Request: python-mozbase - the Mozilla suite of Python utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784657 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||786093 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785681] Review Request: python-functest - Functional test 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=785681 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||786093 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785719] Review Request: python-wsgi-jsonrpc - Expose Python classes via JSON using WSGI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785719 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||786093 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786093] Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing 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=786093 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||784657, 785681, 785719 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786093] New: Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786093 Summary: Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kk...@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://kklic.fedorapeople.org/python-windmill.spec SRPM URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/python-windmill-1.7-0.1.git4304ee7.fc16.src.rpm Description: Windmill is an open Source AJAX Web UI Testing framework. It implements cross browser testing, in-browser recording and playback, and functionality for fast accurate debugging and test environment integration. rpmlint python-windmill-1.7-0.1.git4304ee7.fc17.noarch.rpm python-windmill.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary windmill 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - can be solved later rpmlint python-windmill-1.7-0.1.git4304ee7.fc17.src.rpm python-windmill.src: W: invalid-url Source0: windmill-windmill-v1.5.0-beta-9-g4304ee7.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. - windmill has no URL to download from -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784657] Review Request: python-mozbase - the Mozilla suite of Python utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784657 --- Comment #2 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 08:00:07 EST --- Spec URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/python-mozbase.spec SRPM URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/python-mozbase-0-0.2.gitb077641.fc16.src.rpm * Tue Jan 31 2012 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com - 0-0.2.gitb077641 - Added patch firefox-version to fix the browser version check on Linux -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724936] Review Request: python-mock - A Python Mocking and Patching Library for Testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724936 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 09:10:08 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 226274] Merge Review: perl-Parse-RecDescent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226274 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 09:08:54 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 670915] Review Request: aprsg - Amateur Radio APRS Gateway
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670915 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 09:07:46 EST --- OK, upstream has released 1.4 so I'm having another attempt to repackage. still failing to build under rawhide (but is OK in F16 and older) g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wall -DSYSCONFDIR=\/etc\ -I/usr/lib64/wx/include/gtk2-unicode-release-2.8 -I/usr/includ e/wx-2.8 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES -D__WXGTK__ -DwxUSE_GUI=0 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexc eptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o serialport.o `test -f 'linux/serialport.cp p' || echo './'`linux/serialport.cpp g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -Wall -DSYSCONFDIR=\/etc\ -I/usr/lib64/wx/include/gtk2-unicode-release-2.8 -I/usr/includ e/wx-2.8 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES -D__WXGTK__ -DwxUSE_GUI=0 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexc eptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o connection.o connection.cpp linux/serialport.cpp: In constructor 'Serialport::Serialport(const string, const string, const unsigned int, const unsi gned int, const unsigned int, const char, const unsigned int, const bool)': linux/serialport.cpp:68:19: error: 'getpid' was not declared in this scope linux/serialport.cpp: In destructor 'Serialport::~Serialport()': linux/serialport.cpp:240:20: error: 'close' was not declared in this scope linux/serialport.cpp: In member function 'bool Serialport::transmit(const string)': linux/serialport.cpp:255:54: error: 'write' was not declared in this scope linux/serialport.cpp: In member function 'bool Serialport::receive(std::string, unsigned int)': linux/serialport.cpp:286:39: error: 'read' was not declared in this scope make[2]: *** [serialport.o] Error 1 ... ongoing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785711] Review Request: rubygem-map - String/symbol indifferent ordered hash
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785711 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 09:11:50 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 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 09:11:15 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560 --- Comment #2 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 10:04:58 EST --- Required rubygem(nokogiri) pushed today to stable repos. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784359] Review Request: qpid-guitools - GUI utilities for Red Hat MRG qpid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784359 --- Comment #3 from Ernie eal...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 10:13:57 EST --- Thanks for the review. Very helpful. I've fixed the .spec file per your advice. rpmlint now reports one warning about a missing man page, but I believe that can be safely ignored. Everything seems to build under mock. I will be the upstream maintainer, but I'm unclear on what is meant by you should version your source tarball. Please elaborate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786151] New: Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151 Summary: Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-pkg-config.spec SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-pkg-config-0.26-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The pkgconfig tool determines compilation options. For each required library, it reads the configuration file and outputs the necessary compiler and linker flags. This package contains pkg-config tool for cross compiling with the MinGW toolchain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 10:44:42 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dnssec-trigger Short Description: NetworkManager plugin to update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving Owners: pwouters atkac Branches: devel 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 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560 Emanuel Rietveld codehot...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|codehot...@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 786151] Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kalevlem...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 11:03:38
EST ---
Fedora review mingw-pkg-config-0.26-1.fc16.src.rpm 2012-01-31
+ OK
! needs attention
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint mingw32-pkg-config \
mingw-pkg-config-debuginfo-0.26-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm \
mingw-pkg-config-0.26-1.fc16.src.rpm
mingw32-pkg-config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pkgconfig -
configure
mingw32-pkg-config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -
tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin
mingw32-pkg-config.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/share/man/man1/%{mingw32_target}-pkg-config.1.gz %{mingw32_target}
mingw32-pkg-config.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/bin/%{mingw32_target}-pkg-config %{mingw32_target}
mingw-pkg-config-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pkg-config-0.26/pkg.c
mingw-pkg-config-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pkg-config-0.26/pkg.h
mingw-pkg-config-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pkg-config-0.26/parse.c
mingw-pkg-config-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pkg-config-0.26/parse.h
mingw-pkg-config-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/pkg-config-0.26/main.c
mingw-pkg-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pkgconfig -
configure
mingw-pkg-config.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain - tool
chain, tool-chain, Chaitin
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 6 warnings.
! rpmlint found an unexpanded-macro %{mingw32_target}, which should instead be
%{_mingw32_target} with an underscore.
Other errors and warnings are harmless.
+ The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding
native Fedora package
+ The package contains the license file (COPYING)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
47525c26a9ba7ba14bf85e01509a7234 pkg-config-0.26.tar.gz
47525c26a9ba7ba14bf85e01509a7234 Download/pkg-config-0.26.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
Remaining issues:
! %{mingw32_target} should be %{_mingw32_target}
! configure complains: WARNING: unrecognized options: --with-installed-glib
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756448] Review Request: mingw-ftplib - MinGW package for ftplib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756448
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-01-31
11:03:00 EST ---
$ rpmlint mingw-ftplib.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-ftplib-3.1-3.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint noarch/mingw32-ftplib-3.1-3.fc16.noarch.rpm
mingw32-ftplib.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-ftplib
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(ws2_32.dll)
mingw32-runtime
mingw32-filesystem = 83
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-ftplib
mingw32(libftp.dll)
mingw32-ftplib = 3.1-3.fc16
$ rpm --query --fileprovide mingw32-ftplib
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/libftp.dll mingw32(libftp.dll)
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ftplib.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libftp.dll.a
$ curl --silent http://nbpfaus.net/~pfau/ftplib/ftplib-3.1-1.tar.gz | md5sum
763be9c7e7b110776f88521a558dbc55 -
$ md5sum ftplib-3.1-1.tar.gz
763be9c7e7b110776f88521a558dbc55 ftplib-3.1-1.tar.gz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem = xx is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific
ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[!] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[/] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
[Bug 786151] Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151 --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-01-31 11:09:01 EST --- Thank you for the review! Spec URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-pkg-config.spec SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-pkg-config-0.26-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786151] Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 11:12:50 EST --- Looks good. 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 757348] Review Request: mgarepo - Tools for Mageia repository access and management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757348 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-01-31 11:16:51 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mgarepo Short Description: Tools for Mageia repository access and management. Owners: misc Branches: f16 InitialCC: misc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560
--- Comment #4 from Emanuel Rietveld codehot...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 11:16:35
EST ---
According to Ruby Packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gems
- For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a
Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints as the Gem.
You do not have version constraints on your Requires.
Here is similar language from the draft packaging guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby
- For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package must contain a
Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}). Packager must ensure that the package works
properly with its specified dependencies. Please note, that Fedora may carry
different versions of Gems than those specified in Gem specification, therefore
the versions required in specfile may not match the dependencies in Gem
specification exactly. In that case, the Gem specification (.gemspec) file must
be adjusted accordingly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786151] Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-01-31 11:19:56 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-pkg-config Short Description: MinGW Library for loading and sharing PKCS#11 modules Owners: epienbro kalev Branches: f16 InitialCC: mingwmaint -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785560] Review Request: rubygem-wrongdoc - RDoc done right (IMNSHO)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785560
--- Comment #5 from Emanuel Rietveld codehot...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 11:17:35
EST ---
Review summary:
- Missing dependency rubygem(tidy_ffi) ?
- I'm not sure if you are following packaging guidelines with regards to
version constrains on the gemdeps
- Package looks OK to me otherwise
Legend
+ OK
- Not Applicable, ignored
? Still under Review
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[?] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[?] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[-] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[-] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[+] 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. [18]
[-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[-] 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. [19]
[-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
[-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[-] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a
[Bug 786151] Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 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 786151] Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151 --- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-01-31 11:21:12 EST --- Please ignore the previous SCM request, it contained a silly copy/paste typo. This one's correct: New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-pkg-config Short Description: MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling Owners: epienbro kalev Branches: f16 InitialCC: mingwmaint -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770615
Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||adel.gadl...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 11:21:52
EST ---
Review:
[1] rpmlint must be run on every package.
baobab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse - analyses,
analyst, analyze
baobab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file system,
file-system, systemically
baobab.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse - analyses,
analyst, analyze
baobab.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file
system, file-system, systemically
baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils
baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils-libs
baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils-devel
baobab-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/baobab-3.3.1/src/baobab-remote-connect-dialog.c
baobab-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/baobab-3.3.1/src/baobab-remote-connect-dialog.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.
[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. (GPLv2+ and GFDL)
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[2] 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.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
sha265: df516886452984c609ecd149ea43cbbd77f100c4c5424762835600a2269075d7
[+] The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] 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.
[+] A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed
in the spec.
[+] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed / validated with desktop-file-install
/ desktop-file-validate in the %install section.
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
1: Mostly just noise, should provide gnome-utils though for upgrades.
2: Should package COPYING (and probably NEWS and README)
Otherwise looks fine.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785371] Review Request: speed-dreams - a fork of TORCS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #7 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de 2012-01-31 11:36:25 EST --- the source file is available on: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/speed-dreams-2.0.0-0.1.rc1_r4420.12.fc16.src.rpm?a=F3KrG1YY2wk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785274] Review Request: mingw-goocanvas2 - MinGW Windows canvas library for GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785274
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-01-31
11:44:17 EST ---
$ rpmlint mingw-goocanvas2.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-goocanvas2-2.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
mingw-goocanvas2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cairo - Cairo,
cairn
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint noarch/mingw32-goocanvas2-2.0.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
mingw32-goocanvas2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cairo -
Cairo, cairn
mingw32-goocanvas2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-goocanvas2-2.0.1/COPYING
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-goocanvas2
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libatk-1.0-0.dll)
mingw32(libcairo-2.dll)
mingw32(libgdk-3-0.dll)
mingw32(libgdk_pixbuf-2.0-0.dll)
mingw32(libglib-2.0-0.dll)
mingw32(libgobject-2.0-0.dll)
mingw32(libgtk-3-0.dll)
mingw32(libpango-1.0-0.dll)
mingw32(libpangocairo-1.0-0.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32-runtime
mingw32-filesystem = 83
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-goocanvas2
mingw32(libgoocanvas-2.0-9.dll)
mingw32-goocanvas2 = 2.0.1-1.fc16
$ rpm --query --fileprovide mingw32-goocanvas2
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/libgoocanvas-2.0-9.dll
mingw32(libgoocanvas-2.0-9.dll)
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvas.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasellipse.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasenumtypes.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasgrid.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasgroup.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasimage.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasitem.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasitemmodel.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasitemsimple.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasmarshal.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvaspath.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvaspolyline.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasrect.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasstyle.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvastable.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvastext.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvasutils.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/goocanvas-2.0/goocanvaswidget.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgoocanvas-2.0.dll.a
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgoocanvas-2.0.la
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/goocanvas-2.0.pc
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/locale/en_GB/LC_MESSAGES/goocanvas2.mo
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/goocanvas2.mo
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/locale/ja/LC_MESSAGES/goocanvas2.mo
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/locale/sv/LC_MESSAGES/goocanvas2.mo
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-goocanvas2-2.0.1
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-goocanvas2-2.0.1/COPYING
$ wget --quiet
http://download.gnome.org/sources/goocanvas/2.0/goocanvas-2.0.1.tar.xz -O - |
md5sum
78a98fa526ce73a77a454711c96f07a2 -
$ md5sum goocanvas-2.0.1.tar.xz
78a98fa526ce73a77a454711c96f07a2 goocanvas-2.0.1.tar.xz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem = xx is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific
ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the
[Bug 785274] Review Request: mingw-goocanvas2 - MinGW Windows canvas library for GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785274 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 11:52:32 EST --- Thanks for the review, Erik! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-goocanvas2 Short Description: MinGW Windows canvas library for GTK+ Owners: kalev epienbro 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 785274] Review Request: mingw-goocanvas2 - MinGW Windows canvas library for GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785274 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 12:39:53 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Erik, please take ownership of review BZs. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 757348] Review Request: mgarepo - Tools for Mageia repository access and management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757348 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 12:38:59 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 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 12:45:12 EST --- Failing, p...@xelerance.com is not a valid bugzilla email address. Your FAS email and bugzilla email should match. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786151] Review request: mingw-pkg-config - MinGW Windows pkg-config tool for cross compiling
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786151 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 12:41:38 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 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 12:50:57 EST --- Unsetting cvs flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747765] Review Request: apache-log4j-extras - Apache Extras Companion for Apache log4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747765 --- Comment #6 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2012-01-31 12:52:22 EST --- I'm seeing these errors when building in F16: [WARNING] [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective model for log4j:apache-log4j-extras:bundle:1.1 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin is missing. @ line 83, column 15 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin is missing. @ line 227, column 15 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin is missing. @ line 96, column 15 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin is missing. @ line 90, column 15 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin is missing. @ line 79, column 15 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin is missing. @ line 213, column 15 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin is missing. @ line 242, column 15 [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin is missing. @ line 104, column 12 [WARNING] [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because they threaten the stability of your build. [WARNING] [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer support building such malformed projects. [WARNING] [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] Building Apache Extras Companion? for Apache log4j?. 1.1 [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] --- maven-antrun-plugin:1.6:run (javadoc.resources) @ apache-log4j-extras --- [WARNING] The POM for ant:ant:jar:1.5 is missing, no dependency information available [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] Skipping Apache Extras Companion? for Apache log4j?. [INFO] This project has been banned from the build due to previous failures. [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] BUILD FAILURE [INFO] [INFO] Total time: 3.354s [INFO] Finished at: Tue Jan 31 12:30:32 EST 2012 [INFO] Final Memory: 8M/106M [INFO] [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.6:run (javadoc.resources) on project apache-log4j-extras: Execution javadoc.resources of goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.6:run failed: Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.3 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: The repository system is offline but the artifact ant:ant:jar:1.5 is not available in the local repository. - [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e switch. [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging. [ERROR] [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the following articles: [ERROR] [Help 1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/PluginResolutionException error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wzxP8u (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.wzxP8u (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/apache-log4j-extras.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py, line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py, line 352, in do raise mockbuild.exception.Error, (Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/apache-log4j-extras.spec'] LEAVE do -- EXCEPTION RAISED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772616] Review Request: epstool - A utility to create or extract preview images in EPS files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772616 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|epstool-3.08-2.fc15 |epstool-3.08-2.el5 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 12:53:03 EST --- epstool-3.08-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785274] Review Request: mingw-goocanvas2 - MinGW Windows canvas library for GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785274 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785274] Review Request: mingw-goocanvas2 - MinGW Windows canvas library for GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785274 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||mingw-goocanvas2-2.0.1-2.fc ||16 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-01-31 13:05:17 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 13:05:17 EST --- Package imported and built; closing the ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747765] Review Request: apache-log4j-extras - Apache Extras Companion for Apache log4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747765 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 13:06:48 EST --- Ant upstream has moved away of groupId long long ago. The current one is org.apache.ant and the pom.xml should be patched to reflect this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786093] Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing 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=786093 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||786213 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786213] Review Request: trac-agilo-plugin - A plugin for supporting the Scrum process in Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786213 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||786093 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786213] New: Review Request: trac-agilo-plugin - A plugin for supporting the Scrum process in Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: trac-agilo-plugin - A plugin for supporting the Scrum
process in Trac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786213
Summary: Review Request: trac-agilo-plugin - A plugin for
supporting the Scrum process in Trac
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: kk...@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://kklic.fedorapeople.org/trac-agilo-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: http://kklic.fedorapeople.org/trac-agilo-plugin-0.9.5-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description:
Agilo for Trac is a simple and straightforward tool to support the
Scrum process.
rpmlint trac-agilo-plugin-0.9.5-1.fc16.src.rpm
trac-agilo-plugin.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %check
trac-agilo-plugin.src:28: W: macro-in-comment %{python_sitelib}
trac-agilo-plugin.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{python_sitelib}
trac-agilo-plugin.src:30: W: macro-in-comment %{_defaultdocdir}
trac-agilo-plugin.src:30: W: macro-in-comment %{VERSION}
trac-agilo-plugin.src:31: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
trac-agilo-plugin.src:31: W: macro-in-comment %{python_sitelib}
trac-agilo-plugin.src:31: W: macro-in-comment %{__python}
trac-agilo-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: agilo_source.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
rpmlint trac-agilo-plugin-0.9.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
trac-agilo-plugin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary agilo_sqlite2pg
trac-agilo-plugin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary create_agilo_project
trac-agilo-plugin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary agilo_svn_hook_commit
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771480] Review Request: trident - A Java animation 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=771480
Sven Baus s.bau...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://kenai.com/projects/% |http://kenai.com/projects/t
|{name}/pages/Home |rident/pages/Home
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 690726] Review Request: python-hg-git - mercurial client to talk to git server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690726
Ed Marshall e...@logic.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@logic.net
--- Comment #3 from Ed Marshall e...@logic.net 2012-01-31 14:54:01 EST ---
Updating to the latest version of hg-git (0.3.2 as of this posting) resolves
the problem and allows this to build (the discovery API changed in Mercurial
1.9, and findoutgoing is no longer available).
Also, Source0 could be changed to
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/%{srcname}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
(upstream doesn't provide tarballs directly from their website, but they do
make them available in pypi). The downside is, the version shipped via pypi
doesn't include the tests directory, so perhaps grabbing the tagged releases
from bitbucket are still a better idea (the list of tags on github doesn't seem
to be up-to-date).
John, would you be willing to post an updated version?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786249] New: Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests
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-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: m...@zarb.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://www.ephaone.org/~misc/specs/rubygem-puppet-lint.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ephaone.org/~misc/specs/rubygem-puppet-lint-0.1.12-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Ensure your Puppet manifests conform with the Puppetlabs style guide Checks your Puppet manifests against the Puppetlabs style guide and alerts you to any discrepancies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784359] Review Request: qpid-guitools - GUI utilities for Red Hat MRG qpid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784359 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 15:26:30 EST --- You should append the version to the tarball name,ie: qpid-guitools-1.0.0.tar.bz2 (which should decompress as qpid-guitools-1.0.0). For Fedora, it allows storing multiple versions in the tarball cache (and it's easier for users to discriminate differents version). For the man page, it's good practice to include one, though it's really necessary for command-line utilities, so it's safe to ignore 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 783151] Review Request: FlightCrew - EPUB validation 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=783151 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 15:34:43 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 783151] Review Request: FlightCrew - EPUB validation 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=783151 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 15:31:07 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: FlightCrew Short Description: EPUB validation library Owners: jwrdegoede sharkcz Branches: f16 InitialCC: Danny, thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 Bug 772362 depends on bug 783151, which changed state. Bug 783151 Summary: Review Request: FlightCrew - EPUB validation library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783151 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783151] Review Request: FlightCrew - EPUB validation 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=783151 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-01-31 16:50:26 --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 16:50:26 EST --- FlightCrew has been imported and build for Rawhide and F-16. I don't intend to do a F-16 update in bodhi until we've the entire chain (ZipArchive, FlightCrew and Sigil) and then I'll push them all as one update - closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 16:57:15 EST --- omniORB-4.1.6-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/omniORB-4.1.6-1.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 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741626] Review Request: packmol - Packing optimization for molecular dynamics simulations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741626 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||packmol-1.1.2.023-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-31 16:56:47 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 16:56:47 EST --- packmol-1.1.2.023-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781775] Review Request: sevmgr - C++ Simulation-Oriented Discrete Event Management 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=781775 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 16:57:23 EST --- sevmgr-0.2.0-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756491] Review Request: python-libcloud - Python library that abstracts away differences among multiple cloud provider APIs.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756491 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:05:15 EST --- python-libcloud-0.6.2-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785767] Review Request: perl-Gnome2-Vte - Gnome2::Vte Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785767 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:04:54 EST --- perl-Gnome2-Vte-0.09-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CANTFIX Last Closed||2012-01-31 17:02:11 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2012-01-31 17:02:11 EST --- Unfortunately, I realized we are stepping on a licensing mine here, and spot confirmed it: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-January/001802.html so this plan doesn't look viable. The license that applies here is the GPL, not the FDL (because the apidocs are generated from GPLed and/or LGPLed code and there is no binding statement anywhere which would make another license apply), and the GPL requires that we ship the exact corresponding source code for the 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 741626] Review Request: packmol - Packing optimization for molecular dynamics simulations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741626 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|packmol-1.1.2.023-1.fc15|packmol-1.1.2.023-1.fc16 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:05:52 EST --- packmol-1.1.2.023-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:04:35 EST --- omniORB-4.1.6-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/omniORB-4.1.6-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783849] Review Request: ktoblzcheck - A library to check account numbers and bank codes of German banks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783849 Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|gnucash |Package Review AssignedTo|nott...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary|Include ktoblzcheck in |Review Request: ktoblzcheck |gnucash |- A library to check ||account numbers and bank ||codes of German banks --- Comment #3 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 17:11:39 EST --- Spec URL: http://notting.fedorapeople.org/review/ktoblzcheck.spec SRPM URL: http://notting.fedorapeople.org/review/ktoblzcheck-1.37-1.src.rpm Description: KtoBLZCheck is a library to check account numbers and bank codes of German banks. Both a library for other programs as well as a short command-line tool is available. It is possible to check pairs of account numbers and bank codes (BLZ) of German banks, and to map bank codes (BLZ) to the clear-text name and location of the bank. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598315] Review Request: urjtag - A tool to flash/program/debug hardware via JTAG adapters
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598315 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||urjtag-0.10-2.fc16.20111215 ||gite1a4227 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-31 17:04:15 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:04:15 EST --- urjtag-0.10-2.fc16.20111215gite1a4227 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760943] Review Request: perl-Messaging-Message - This perl module provides an abstraction of a message, as used in messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760943 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Messaging-Message-0.7- ||3.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-31 17:04:44 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:04:44 EST --- perl-Messaging-Message-0.7-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781884] Review Request: rubygem-raindrops - Real-time stats for preforking Rack servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781884 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-raindrops-0.8.0-3.f ||c16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-01-31 17:05:07 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:05:07 EST --- rubygem-raindrops-0.8.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 17:44:06 EST --- omniORB-4.1.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/omniORB-4.1.6-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 18:14:29 EST --- Can somebody please open an upstream bug and add it as external reference? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-01-31 18:34:48 EST --- In short, looks like there's not much that can be done. As-is, the archives at api.kde.org are not redistributable and my irc chatting with upstream sounded like they didn't have much interest in efforts to address it (generally, by recording which scm source commits were used to generate the docs) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 18:54:53 EST --- omniORB-4.1.6-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786071] Review Request: ghc-feldspar-language - Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786071 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 19:59:34 EST --- I recommend using cabal2spec-0.25.2 now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785943] Review Request: gunicorn - Python WSGI application server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785943 --- Comment #4 from Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 20:04:12 EST --- Thanks for taking this review Bohuslav! (In reply to comment #3) - The package should be named python-gunicorn. At first I picked gunicorn and not python-gunicorn, because the package is a binary and not a Python library. But now that I read the guidelines more closely I see that you're right -- gunicorn is really an addon package for Python because it's not useful without a Python WSGI application to run. - I think that Group: should be System Environment/Daemons, as it is with other web servers like apache or httpd (not sure if this can actually run as a daemon, but I suppose it can). That makes sense. It is possible (and intended) to run gunicorn as a daemon, although I personally am not using it that way. Actually it should be easy to write a systemd unit for it. I will do that and add it to this package. - You should have BR: python2-devel according to [1]. - You should probably rather BR: python-setuptools than python-setuptools-devel: it seems to me, that the trend is to move to python-setuptools, as the package python-setuptools obsoletes python-setuptools-devel and only provides it for backward compatibility. I have been living in RHEL5-land for too long :-) I will fix these 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 772751] Review Request: git-review - Helper for Gerrit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772751 --- Comment #5 from Pete Zaitcev zait...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 20:06:21 EST --- Update to git-review-1.12 http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/tmp/git-review-1.12-1.fc16.spec http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/tmp/git-review-1.12-1.fc16.src.rpm This fixes what I promised Spenser, but adds a whitespace error (to be fixed). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772499] Review Request: python-anfft - ANFFT is an FFT package for Python, based on FFTW
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772499 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 20:17:05 EST --- Hi Thibault, thank you for the update. The Requires list is fine now, but you accidentally removed BuildRequires too. As far as I can tell, Requires and BuildRequires should be the same. Moreover they can be further simplified (sorry I missed this in the first pass). fftw package itself is not required, but its dependencies fftw-libs fftw-libs-threads are required. Therefore we can do BuildRequires: numpy fftw-libs fftw-libs-threads python2 Requires: numpy fftw-libs fftw-libs-threads python2 Since this is an easy fix, I am approving the package. Please consider the above before you import. --- This package (python-anfft) is APPROVED by oget --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782178 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 20:22:30 EST --- Thanks a lot for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sha2 Short Description: SHA Implementation Library Owners: oget Branches: F-15 F-16 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 754246] Review Request: TV-Browser - A TV Browsing application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754246 Elder Marco elderma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||elderma...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Elder Marco elderma...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 20:54:02 EST --- Just a comment: The name of this package could be tvbrowser instead of Tv-Browser. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 235471] Review Request: perl-PDF-API2 - Perl module for creation and modification of PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235471 Bernard Johnson bjohn...@symetrix.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Bernard Johnson bjohn...@symetrix.com 2012-01-31 21:39:17 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-PDF-API2 New Branches: el6 Owners: bjohn...@symetrix.com InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-l...@redhat.com -- 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 785441] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Nls - Native Language Support (NLS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785441 --- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 22:04:57 EST --- I'm confused. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#PEAR_Packages_from_a_non_standard_channel.2Frepository it seems to indicate that I must require the channel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782610] Review Request: python26-PyYAML - YAML parser and emitter for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782610 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 22:16:53 EST --- python26-PyYAML-3.08-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-PyYAML-3.08-4.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 523877] Review Request: CBFlib - crystallography binary format 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=523877 Tim Fenn tim.f...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 523877] Review Request: CBFlib - crystallography binary format 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=523877 --- Comment #44 from Tim Fenn tim.f...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 22:26:57 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: CBFlib Short Description: crystallography binary format library Owners: timfenn Branches: f15 f16 el6 InitialCC: timfenn -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785421] Review Request: python26-msgpack - A Python MessagePack (de)serializer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785421
--- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 22:31:50
EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported 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: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: 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 is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: 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 is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python26-msgpack-debuginfo-0.1.10-1.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python26-msgpack-0.1.10-1.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
python26-msgpack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) de - DE, ed, d
python26-msgpack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -
serialize, serializes, serialized
python26-msgpack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed,
d
python26-msgpack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -
serialize, serializes, serialized
python26-msgpack.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.10-1
['0.1.10-1.el5.centos', '0.1.10-1.centos']
python26-msgpack.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/msgpack/_msgpack.so 0775L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint python26-msgpack-0.1.10-1.el5.centos.src.rpm
python26-msgpack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) de - DE, ed, d
python26-msgpack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer - serialize,
serializes, serialized
python26-msgpack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d
python26-msgpack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -
serialize, serializes, serialized
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/nb/785421/785421/msgpack-python-0.1.10.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : a31f16d20ea8ec79cc8cba1103f951d8
MD5SUM upstream package : a31f16d20ea8ec79cc8cba1103f951d8
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST 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.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
[Bug 772432] Review Request: gnome-applet-sensors - GNOME panel applet for hardware sensors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772432 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||peter...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-01-31 23:16:38 EST --- Awesome thanks - I just discovered Alt+Button3 on the gnome-panel and switched back from xfce to gnome fallback - I like xfce but a lot of basic things just work better/cleaner in gnome for me. Thanks for cleaning up the spec file. I suggest BuildRoot:, %clean and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT could all be removed now. Otherwise it basically looks fine to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772432] Review Request: gnome-applet-sensors - GNOME panel applet for hardware sensors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772432 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|peter...@redhat.com | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@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 785421] Review Request: python26-msgpack - A Python MessagePack (de)serializer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785421 Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-31 23:59:35 EST --- Talked with herlo on IRC. non-standard-executable error is handled the exact same way in the existing python-msgpack package. Incoherent version is false. The versions are fine in the real spec, not sure where the warning came from. 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 785421] Review Request: python26-msgpack - A Python MessagePack (de)serializer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785421 Clint Savage her...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Clint Savage her...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 00:03:32 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python26-msgpack Short Description: A Python MessagePack (de)serializer Owners: herlo Branches: el5 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 772432] Review Request: gnome-applet-sensors - GNOME panel applet for hardware sensors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772432 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 00:18:16 EST --- The defattr's can also be dropped. Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable, !: needs attention MUST Items: [!] MUST: rpmlint output [1] gnome-applet-sensors.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable - customization 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/pmu-sys/pmu-sys-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/eee/eee-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/udisks/udisks-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet-gconf.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet-gconf.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/about-dialog.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/i8k/i8k-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/about-dialog.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/acpi/acpi-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/ibm-acpi/ibm-acpi-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/smu-sys/smu-sys-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/active-sensor-libnotify.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/active-sensor-libnotify.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/lib/sensors-applet-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet-sensor.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/hddtemp/hddtemp-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensor-config-dialog.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensor-config-dialog.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet-plugins.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet-plugins.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/omnibook/omnibook-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/mbmon/mbmon-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/sensors-applet-plugin.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/libsensors/libsensors-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/active-sensor.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/active-sensor.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/plugins/sonypi/sonypi-plugin.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/main.c gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sensors-applet-3.0.0/sensors-applet/prefs-dialog.h gnome-applet-sensors-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
[Bug 785441] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Nls - Native Language Support (NLS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785441 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2012-02-01 01:13:37 EST --- Yes, You must requires it for a single package, but as far as you requires another package in this channel, you already implicitly requires it. After a look to some packages, as all requires php-pear(PEAR) = 1.7.0 php-common = 5.2.0 You could even add this 2 requirement in the channel, to avoid adding it (BR and R) in each package. This will make the dependency stack really simpler. About locales, any feedback from upstream ? After discussion on IRC, all files must be generated from sources, so the .mo should be created during the rpmbuild, and .po/.pot doesn't need to be packaged (except if you have a good explanation about why they are required) This will make the spec a little more complex, but will ensure that the .mo will be accurate, with the .po, and with the gettext version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782610] Review Request: python26-PyYAML - YAML parser and emitter for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782610 Clint Savage her...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-01 01:26:04 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783061] Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 02:07:19 EST --- omniORB-4.1.6-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/omniORB-4.1.6-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785719] Review Request: python-wsgi-jsonrpc - Expose Python classes via JSON using WSGI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785719 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-01 02:15:26 EST --- I'll take the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785681] Review Request: python-functest - Functional test 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=785681 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-01 02:19:21 EST --- I'll take this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785719] Review Request: python-wsgi-jsonrpc - Expose Python classes via JSON using WSGI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785719 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782220] Review Request: dlm - cluster infrastructure for dlm (distributed lock manager)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782220 Fabio Massimo Di Nitto fdini...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-01 02:31:36 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786071] Review Request: ghc-feldspar-language - Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786071 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||713359 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
