[Bug 786359] New: Review Request: PyMunin - Python Module for developing Munin Multigraph Monitoring Plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: PyMunin - Python Module for developing Munin Multigraph Monitoring Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786359 Summary: Review Request: PyMunin - Python Module for developing Munin Multigraph Monitoring Plugins 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/PyMunin.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/PyMunin-0.9.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Python Module for developing Munin Multigraph Monitoring Plugins. Regular Munin Plugins employ one-plugin one-graph logic and require the execution of a script for data retrieval for each graph. Multigraph plugins permit retrieval of data for multiple graphs in one execution run (one-plugin many-graphs), reducing the processing time and delay for the fetch cycle significantly. koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751154 [mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/SRPMS/PyMunin-0.9.3-1.fc16.src.rpm /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/PyMunin-0.9.3-1.fc16.noarch.rpm ./PyMunin.spec PyMunin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multigraph - Multiracial PyMunin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multigraph - Multiracial 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 --- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 03:06:34 EST --- Note, during some tests I found out that my sigil packages would not open some epubs I've tracked this down to a problem with ZipArchive and build a fixed ZipArchive package. So please download the latest ZipArchive from koji before running any tests. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772608] Review Request: ovirt-guest-agent - oVirt Guest Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772608
Jorge A Gallegos k...@blegh.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k...@blegh.net
--- Comment #11 from Jorge A Gallegos k...@blegh.net 2012-02-01 03:19:25 EST
---
** I AM NOT A SPONSOR **
However, I'll try and submit a review as per Steven's request.
First, I can see a glaring issue with your package, you are shipping GDM's
.src.rpm as part of your own source. That is probably not going to fly, even
though I can't really find anything in the packaging guidelines that prevents
you from doing it (closest would be
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries
but there's no mention about .src.rpm). I see some problems with your approach:
- You are shipping a specific version of source that is already present in
fedora
- You will have to ship newer, static .src.rpm whenever GDM gets a newer
version
- You may end up fighting duplicated libraries
The approach, in my opinion, would be to get in touch with the GDM packagers
and ask for your stuff to be included if it's not already. It is not entirely
apparent why requiring gdm-devel wouldn't work right now.
Now, on with the revision proper:
[kad@propane rpmbuild ]$ rpmlint SPECS/ovirt-guest-agent.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[kad@propane rpmbuild ]$ rpmlint SRPMS/ovirt-guest-agent-1.0.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
ovirt-guest-agent.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt Guest Agent
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
(oVirt is not capitalized in the main oVirt package, so I guess that warning
is ok)
[BLOCKER] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license - the COPYING file in the source tarball has GPLv3, you have GPLv2+ in
the spec file
[BLOCKER] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL - You should take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control and
not use a self-hosted source tarball (Source0:
http://ghammer.fedorapeople.org/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2)
[BLOCKER] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture - I got this error when trying a mock build:
xorg-x11-server-Xorg is needed by gdm-1:3.2.1.1-6.fc16.x86_64.
[BLOCKER] Each package must consistently use macros - I see a mix of $MACRO and
%{macro}, use one style and stick with. Also, if you don't plan on supporting
EPEL/RH, you should do away with the whole RPM_BUILD_ROOT [citation needed,
maybe?]
Additionally, it seems you include some python code in there, so, using
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python as guide:
[BLOCKER] To build a package containing python2 files, you need to have
BuildRequires: python2-devel
Some additional suggestions:
- defattr is not needed anymore, if I recall
- you should name your different targets appropriately like
ovirt-guest-agent-gdm-plugin instead of just gdm-plugin
- in your %pre step, you add a user rhevagent if it doesn't exist, but you are
also hardcoding the UID. You should leave that to the system to figure out and
just use -r for system users
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-01
03:50:05 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST 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 python-functest-0.8.8-1.fc17.src.rpm
python-functest.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US teardown - tear
down, tear-down, downhearted
python-functest.src:7: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-functest.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-functest.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-functest.src: W: invalid-url Source0: python-functest-0.8.8.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
rpmlint python-functest-0.8.8-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
python-functest.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US teardown -
tear down, tear-down, downhearted
python-functest.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-functest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary functest
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into
[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 Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-01 04:02:55 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-01
04:08:02 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST 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 python-wsgi-jsonrpc-0.2.9-1.fc17.src.rpm
python-wsgi-jsonrpc.src:7: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-wsgi-jsonrpc.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-wsgi-jsonrpc.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-wsgi-jsonrpc.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
python-wsgi-jsonrpc-0.2.9.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint python-wsgi-jsonrpc-0.2.9-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint
[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 #3 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 04:19:54 EST --- Updated to use cabal2spec-0.25.2: SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ghc-feldspar-language.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ghc-feldspar-language-0.4.0.2-2.fc15.src.rpm Successful Koji builds for F15, F16, and F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751303 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751306 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751309 $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language-0.4.0.2-2.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language-0.4.0.2-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-feldspar-language-devel-0.4.0.2-2.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 736262] Review Request: proxyfuzz - man-in-the-middle non-deterministic network fuzzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736262 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736262] Review Request: proxyfuzz - man-in-the-middle non-deterministic network fuzzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736262 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 04:54:39 EST --- proxyfuzz-20110923-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/proxyfuzz-20110923-1.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 736262] Review Request: proxyfuzz - man-in-the-middle non-deterministic network fuzzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736262 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 04:54:48 EST --- proxyfuzz-20110923-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/proxyfuzz-20110923-1.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 786054] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786054 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kk...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 05:26:00 EST --- I'll review 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 784239] Review Request: python-django-debug-toolbar - Configurable set of panels that display various debug information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784239 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kk...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 05:26:39 EST --- Taking this package for a 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 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 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #16 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2012-02-01 06:04:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-l...@redhat.com This doesn't seem right to me. This likely should be InitialCC: perl-sig However, the packagedb already shows perl-sig as InitialCC:. -- 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 567086] Review Request: VXL - C++ Libraries for Computer Vision Research and Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567086 --- Comment #38 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 06:27:43 EST --- Hi everybody! please see this post on the current status of ITK dependencies: https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/medical-sig/2012-February/000240.html Best, Mario -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 539387] Review Request: InsightToolkit - Medical imaging processing 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=539387 --- Comment #25 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 06:28:48 EST --- Hi everybody! please see this post on the current status of ITK dependencies: https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/medical-sig/2012-February/000240.html Best, Mario -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list 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 #6 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 06:48:01 EST --- OK - with the gcc-4.7 cleanup I had to explicitly #include unistd.h in serialport.cpp -- patch submitted upstream to author, together with discussions on logrotate etc (I have a logrotate.d/aprsg ready to go, but haven't included it in this as it doesn't log by default). Files available at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/aprsg-1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/aprsg.logrotate http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/aprsg.spec RPMlint output: [aelwell@pcitgtelwell aprsg]$ rpmlint aprsg.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [aelwell@pcitgtelwell aprsg]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/aprsg-1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm aprsg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US soundmodem - sound modem, sound-modem, soundness 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (False positive - soundmodem is the name of the package) On a built binary (mock, F16-x86_64) I also get wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding for COPYING -- Text is identical to the GPL -- Should I fix with dos2unix or get upstream to change? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784175] Review Request: SuperLU - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175 --- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 07:18:53 EST --- I have updated: * to use RPM_OPT_FLAGS and LIBS when building the sources * to use Atlas library instead of blas * Replaced names and version with their respective macros SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/SuperLU.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/SuperLU-4.3-2.fc15.src.rpm Successful Koji builds for F15, F16, F17 and EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751616 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751621 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751625 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3751623 $ rpmlint SuperLU.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SuperLU-4.3-2.fc15.src.rpm SuperLU.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordered - reordered, p reordered, prerecorded SuperLU.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordering - reordering, p reordering, preordaining 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint SuperLU-4.3-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm SuperLU.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordered - reordered, p reordered, prerecorded SuperLU.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordering - reordering, p reordering, preordaining SuperLU.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsuperlu.so.4.3 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint SuperLU-devel-4.3-2.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 786359] Review Request: PyMunin - Python Module for developing Munin Multigraph Monitoring Plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786359 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-01 07:27:10 EST --- I just saw: included plugin pymunin-fsstats requires a module named ESL, which is currently not available. As a solution, I'd disable fsstats and leave it to upstream to fix this. pymunin-netstats calls netstat with parameter -4, which is unknown to fedoras netstat, it looks like, this should be better -t. Reported upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 08:19:54 EST --- Owners and InitialCC need to be FAS accounts, not email addresses. Do you possibly mean perl-sig? -- 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 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 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 08:24:25 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 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 #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 08:25:30 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 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 #45 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 08:21:11 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 785700] Review Request: relaxngcc - RELAX NG Compiler Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785700 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 2012-02-01 08:53:28 EST --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/relaxngcc.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/relaxngcc-1.12-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 09:23:54 EST --- Hi Martin! I'm not a reviewer, but I can maybe help you a little. First of all: you need to get the URL:s to the spec and src rpm in shape. You have attached the spec file, and it works right now. However, in the long run URL:s to the source (which is fine ATM) and the spec should work. Each time you change anything, provide new URL:s (and don't forget to update the release # in the spec file). You don't have to attach patches etc, they are all accessible in the srpm. Secondly, to others listening: this srpm is huge, roughly 1GB. Third, someone needs to change the subject line to something like Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator. I don't know if you can edit the subject line, otherwise a Fedora admin will certainly fix this. This is important to attract reviewers (which are not always easily found). After a fast look at the spec file and source, it looks basically fine besides nit-picking details in my not so experienced eyes. One thing you will have to handle is that some source files have a Mozilla license (MPL 1.0), which is not compatible with GPLv2. Have a look into http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing as a beginning. Good luck! --alec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #12 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr 2012-02-01 09:58:25 EST --- Hello, As I was indicating in my last post, I would be very grateful if someone could give me an indication of the progress of this review. What could I do to make it successful? I'm also still looking for a sponsor for this package, if approved. Today, new upstream release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet For F-16 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-105-g23bb914.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736262] Review Request: proxyfuzz - man-in-the-middle non-deterministic network fuzzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736262 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 10:35:50 EST --- proxyfuzz-20110923-1.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 784156] Review Request: uwsgi - Fast, self-healing, application container 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=784156 --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 10:40:10 EST --- Jorge, Thanks for the prompt review of Bug #772608. You did a really nice job of picking out the issues and demonstrating you can execute a review. I'll give Gal until Feb 6 to review this package at which point I'll review and then add you to the packagers group once the package has met packaging guidelines. Regards -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nwipe-0.06-2.el5|nwipe-0.06-2.el6 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 10:36:44 EST --- nwipe-0.06-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nwipe-0.06-2.fc16 |nwipe-0.06-2.el4 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 10:36:10 EST --- nwipe-0.06-2.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771070] Review Request: nwipe - Securely erase disks using a variety of recognized methods
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771070 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nwipe-0.06-2.el4|nwipe-0.06-2.el5 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 10:36:36 EST --- nwipe-0.06-2.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 785946] Review Request: python-django-horizon - Django application for talking to Openstack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785946 Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |django-horizon - Django |python-django-horizon - |application for talking to |Django application for |Openstack |talking to Openstack --- Comment #2 from Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 10:53:27 EST --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/reviews/python-django-horizon.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/reviews/python-django-horizon-2012.1-0.1.e3.fc16.src.rpm Changes since v1: - Changed name to python-django-horizon - Changes to http conf to make it all actually work (thanks to dhiggins) - Deps are in rawhide so mock build now works Current RPMlint openstack-dashboard.noarch: W: no-documentation Not a blocker IMO openstack-dashboard.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/local/local_settings.pyc 2012-02-01T10:42:39 /etc/openstack-dashboard/local_settings 2012-02-01T10:42:55 I don't know what to do about this: /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/local/local_settings.py is a symlink to /etc/openstack-dashboard/local_settings.py. Seems to cause the mtimes to get confused. Long run I want to enable this behavior in upstream, but for now this seems like a reasonable hack. I don't think the above problem should cause any problems AFAIK. python-django-horizon.noarch: W: no-documentation Not a blocker IMO (though there is a doc subpackage...) python-django-horizon.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/horizon/dashboards/syspanel/instances/tests.py python-django-horizon.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/horizon/dashboards/syspanel/flavors/tests.py python-django-horizon.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/horizon/dashboards/syspanel/services/tests.py python-django-horizon.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/horizon/dashboards/nova/instances_and_volumes/volumes/tests.py python-django-horizon.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/horizon/dashboards/syspanel/images/tests.py python-django-horizon.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/horizon/dashboards/syspanel/quotas/tests.py This stubs need to be there to appease upstream tests. We could rip them out with a patch but that sounds more dangerous than the alternative of just leaving them in. python-django-horizon.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/horizon/dashboards/settings/templates/settings/tenant/openrc.sh.template 0644L /bin/bash This file is actually a template that is used to generate a bash script that is shown to the user in the UI for them to copy to a local file and run. As such it shouldn't be executable, but it should have the #!/bin/bash header that causes rpmlint to think it should be a script. So not a blocker IMO -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784591] Review Request: glazedlists - A Java toolkit for transformations in Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784591
Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235(FE-Legal)
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 10:58:44 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
glazedlists.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://java.net/downloads/glazedlists/glazedlists-1.8.0/glazedlists-1.8.0-source_java15.zip
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The 404 error is invalid, the file is there and can be accessed
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
See Issues
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
See Issues
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2+ (v2 specified) and MPLv1.1, several files licensed
under ASL (not mentioned in spec)
See Issues
[x] 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.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
Javadoc subpackage lacks the license file
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5sum of sources: 479c0ad0635e4b38e17265307c19f233
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
These are no longer necessary, it would be good if you removed them
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
See Issues
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
*** ISSUES ***
- The following files are licensed under Apache License, which is not
mentioned in the License field:
./ca/odell/glazedlists/impl/Preconditions.java: Apache (v2.0)
[Bug 781624] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781624 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 11:21:31 EST --- Rudy, I will sponsor you, however, I require the sponsored person to be an actual person rather then a packackage_maintainer. The rationale behind this is that any old person could come in and maintain the package. When I sponsor someone, I sponsor only 1 person behind that identifier, not a collection of people. So if you can make yourself a fedora account with your proper name, close this bug, and open a new bug (you can link this bug as well if you like) with the proper login, we can proceed. Unfortunately there isn't a way to change the reporter of the bug in bugzilla. As part of our import process, release engineering and the tools validate that the reporter matches the scm request. Please send me a note (sd...@redhat.com) when you have moved through these steps. Regards -steve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
Please do not reply directly 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 MartinKG mgans...@alice.de changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review request: |speed-dreams - a fork of|speed-dreams - The Open |TORCS |Racing Car Simulator -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 12:43:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) Peter, I'm waiting for Rahul to respond to comment 3. I then plan to approve this. Ok, understood. Scott, if anything went wrong, then we would flip roles - I'm willing to review it if you take over this package. I really want to see this in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 12:57:25 EST --- My concern is that we are polluting a common namespace. Once this package has hit the repos it os not easy to rename in case some other software shows up later. We had this problem with surf, the webbrowser. It was renamed even though no other surf exists in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786054 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767185] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767185 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 13:13:07 EST --- Ok, the upshot of FPC discussion was that I should try to use system versions. So I'll try that, including packaging medit. All this to update PIDA. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786054
Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 13:18:58 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-django-nose-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python-django-nose-0.1.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/karel/786054/django-nose-0.1.3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 5b4f54f7e0e251b169d86ad6ee6b9b10
MD5SUM upstream package : 5b4f54f7e0e251b169d86ad6ee6b9b10
[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, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
I just checked the source code matches the description. I did not try
to write a test using it.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail:
[Bug 784239] Review Request: python-django-debug-toolbar - Configurable set of panels that display various debug information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784239 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 --- Comment #8 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 13:31:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Peter, I've mailed Rahul privately, asking if he has time to look at this or if he'd object to me taking over package submission. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 - The Open Racing Car Simulator
Please do not reply directly 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 #9 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de 2012-02-01 13:42:30 EST --- Thanks Alec, a new modified speed-dreams.spec file is available: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/speed-dreams.spec?a=XkVakSJVH6o -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784591] Review Request: glazedlists - A Java toolkit for transformations in Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784591 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 14:01:40 EST --- The licensing situation is fine. Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772233] Review Request: mstflint - Mellanox firmware burning utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772233 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mstflint-1.4-7.fc16 |mstflint-1.4-7.fc15 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:24:08 EST --- mstflint-1.4-7.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 772234] Review Request: qperf - Performance testing utility for RDMA networks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772234 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|qperf-0.4.6-4.fc16 |qperf-0.4.6-4.fc15 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:24:57 EST --- qperf-0.4.6-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771485] Review Request: libcxgb4 - Chelsio T4 iWARP HCA Userspace Driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771485 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||libcxgb4-1.2.0-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-01 14:23:43 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:23:43 EST --- libcxgb4-1.2.0-1.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 772234] Review Request: qperf - Performance testing utility for RDMA networks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772234 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||qperf-0.4.6-4.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-01 14:21:11 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:21:11 EST --- qperf-0.4.6-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772233] Review Request: mstflint - Mellanox firmware burning utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772233 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mstflint-1.4-7.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-01 14:22:17 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:22:17 EST --- mstflint-1.4-7.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 772288] Review Request: infiniband-diags - various InfiniBand fabric test 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=772288 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||infiniband-diags-1.5.12-1.f ||c16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-01 14:23:52 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:23:52 EST --- infiniband-diags-1.5.12-1.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 772229] Review Request: perftest - Performance testing programs for InfiniBand networks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772229 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perftest-1.3.0-2.fc15 |perftest-1.3.0-2.fc16 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:25:13 EST --- perftest-1.3.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772288] Review Request: infiniband-diags - various InfiniBand fabric test 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=772288 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|infiniband-diags-1.5.12-1.f |infiniband-diags-1.5.12-1.f |c16 |c15 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:25:25 EST --- infiniband-diags-1.5.12-1.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 772260] Review Request: srptools - utilities for mounting SRP shared resources
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772260 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||srptools-0.0.4-11.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-01 14:24:46 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:24:46 EST --- srptools-0.0.4-11.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 772229] Review Request: perftest - Performance testing programs for InfiniBand networks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772229 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perftest-1.3.0-2.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-01 14:23:29 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:23:29 EST --- perftest-1.3.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784239] Review Request: python-django-debug-toolbar - Configurable set of panels that display various debug information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784239
Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 14:20:56 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST 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 python-django-debug-toolbar-0.9.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py
- pt, p, y
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
args - rags, gars, ares
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/debug_toolbar/templates/debug_toolbar/panels/._profiling.html
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/debug_toolbar/media/debug_toolbar/css/._toolbar.css
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/debug_toolbar/templates/debug_toolbar/panels/._sql.html
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/debug_toolbar/media/debug_toolbar/js/._jquery.cookie.js
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/debug_toolbar/templates/debug_toolbar/panels/._sql_explain.html
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/debug_toolbar/templates/debug_toolbar/panels/._sql_profile.html
python-django-debug-toolbar.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/debug_toolbar/templates/debug_toolbar/panels/._sql_select.html
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
rpmlint python-django-debug-toolbar-0.9.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
python-django-debug-toolbar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -
pt, p, y
python-django-debug-toolbar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US args
- rags, gars, ares
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/karel/devel/hatchery/784239/django-debug-toolbar-0.9.3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : c11870fb6f206c6dc2efd9a134fd672c
MD5SUM upstream package : c11870fb6f206c6dc2efd9a134fd672c
[x]: MUST Spec
[Bug 771485] Review Request: libcxgb4 - Chelsio T4 iWARP HCA Userspace Driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771485 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libcxgb4-1.2.0-1.fc15 |libcxgb4-1.2.0-1.fc16 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:28:07 EST --- libcxgb4-1.2.0-1.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 772260] Review Request: srptools - utilities for mounting SRP shared resources
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772260 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|srptools-0.0.4-11.fc15 |srptools-0.0.4-11.fc16 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 14:30:59 EST --- srptools-0.0.4-11.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 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
Please do not reply directly 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 #10 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 14:42:40 EST --- I'm afraid it's not that simple. But first, thanks for fixing the framework: URL:s, heading, release number etc. Seems we're up running. But the licensing is trickier. If you look into the link above, there's compatibility matrix. From there, you can find out that the Mozilla license (MPL1.0) is incompatible with GPLv2. Practically, this means that a binary RPM can't be made from both MPL1.0 and GPLv2 sources (that they exist together in the srpm is no problem). So, be prepared that this is no minor issue. I guess you need to look into that link again to get the details... Now, what's your options? I'm by no means a specialist, and I have not looked into the code at all. Let's hope someone of the more experienced people corrects me if I'm wrong. My understanding: - You can't have a License: tag saying GPLv2 and MPL1.0, they are incompatible. - In some cases one can just remove the offending code (that's what happened yesterday in another review). - In other cases it's possible to package it in a subpackage (which can have a license of it's own). - You could talk to the MPL code upstream to see if they can relicense with a dual license. BTW, the situation implies that you should talk to upstream, since this is a problem for anyone trying to package it. What's their opinion? Hope this helps... (one could also hope I'm wrong, that there's a simple solution) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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? --- Comment #18 from Bernard Johnson bjohn...@symetrix.com 2012-02-01 15:02:21 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-PDF-API2 New Branches: el6 Owners: bjohnson InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 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 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 15:11:38 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 the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786587] New: Review Request: network-manager-applet - applet, editor, and private libs for NetworkManager GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: network-manager-applet - applet, editor, and private libs for NetworkManager GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786587 Summary: Review Request: network-manager-applet - applet, editor, and private libs for NetworkManager GUI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: d...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dcbw/network-manager-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dcbw/network-manager-applet-0.9.2-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: This package is the result of splitting the network-manager-applet tarball out of the main NetworkManager RPM where it's lived for about 5 years. The goal is to be able to *not* install nm-applet at all, but still have nm-connection-editor installed. This way we support other DEs that do want nm-applet (xfce, lxde, etc) but also support GNOME Shell which uses nm-connection-editor, but not nm-applet. We'd always meant to split out the GUI bits from the NM RPM, but now we finally have the kick in the pants to do 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 786594] New: Review Request: beefy-miracle-backgrounds - Beefy Miracle desktop backgrounds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: beefy-miracle-backgrounds - Beefy Miracle desktop backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786594 Summary: Review Request: beefy-miracle-backgrounds - Beefy Miracle desktop backgrounds Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: martin.sour...@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://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/beefy-miracle-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/beefy-miracle-backgrounds-16.91.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This package contains the desktop backgrounds for the Beefy Miracle theme. Additional info: spec reused from previous releases, dangling symlinks are OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767185] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767185 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 16:06:05 EST --- And of course, medit bundles gtksourceview. headdesk -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767185] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767185 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 16:13:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) And of course, medit bundles gtksourceview. headdesk ohoh... Now, I'm curious how badly you really want to update PIDA :P -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767185] Review Request: pygtkhelpers - assists the building of PyGTK applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767185 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 16:18:51 EST --- Believe me, you're not the first to experience that feeling. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786602] New: Review Request: picketbox-commons - PicketBox Commons
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: picketbox-commons - PicketBox Commons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786602 Summary: Review Request: picketbox-commons - PicketBox Commons Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ricardo.argue...@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://ricardo.fedorapeople.org/package_review/picketbox-commons/1/picketbox-commons.spec SRPM URL: http://ricardo.fedorapeople.org/package_review/picketbox-commons/1/picketbox-commons-1.0.0-0.1.CR1.fc17.src.rpm Description: PicketBox Commons -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-01 16:53:32 EST --- python26-msgpack-0.1.12-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-msgpack-0.1.12-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 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 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576591 --- Comment #34 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2012-02-01 17:07:13 EST --- Please close ticket if package is imported. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 630822] Review Request: python-ansi2html - convert ansi color codes to html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630822
Toshio Kuratomi tkura...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.bad...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Toshio Kuratomi tkura...@redhat.com 2012-02-01 18:47:48
EST ---
Good:
* Named according to the naming guidelines
* Spec file named appropriately
* License field matches upstream and is an approved open source license
* license text included
* Spec is legible
* tarball matches with upstream
* Compiles and builds in koji f16
* No locale files
* Not an ELF library
* No bundled libraries
* Not relocatable
* No duplicate files
* Permissions set appropriately
* Macros used consistently
* Code, not content
* No large doc files
* No %doc files affect the package at runtime
* Not a GUI application
* Does not own files and directories owned by other packages
* All filenames valid utf-8
* Tested that /usr/bin/ansi2html will successfully convert ansi escape
sequences into an html document
* No scriptlets
Needswork:
* There's a testsuite so should run that in a %check section::
BuildRequires: python-nose
[...]
%check
python setup.py test
* Unowned directory: %{python_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
You have some choices about how to fix this. You could add::
%dir %{python_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
or you could let rpm recursively include things::
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc LICENSE README.rst
%dir %{python_sitelib}/%{srcname}*.egg-info
%{python_sitelib}/%{srcname}*.egg-info/*
%{python_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
%{_bindir}/ansi2html
or even more succinctly::
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc LICENSE README.rst
%{python_sitelib}/*
%{_bindir}/ansi2html
Up to you which style to prefer.
rpmlint output:
- python-ansi2html.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansi2html/ansi2html.py
The FSF address has changed: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/
Since you're upstream, you can change this in upstream's git and it will be
reflected in our package on the next upstream release.
- python-ansi2html.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansi2html/style.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
This is because the style.py file has a shebang line: #!/usr/bin/env python
Looking at the file, it can't be executed as a script so the shebang line
should be removed.
- python-ansi2html.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ansi2html
This is a warning only. if you want to write a man page for this, great.
If not, it's recommended but not required.
Of these, only the shebang removal needs to be done now.
Non-blocking:
* Not a huge deal but since you're upstream, I had to hunt to find that
style.py was the file that made the project GPLv3+. Everything else is
licensed under any version of the GPL. You could mention that it is GPLv3+
in the README.rst or something.
* If you're planning on building for EPEL5, you'll need to get multiprocessing
reviewed
(multiprocessing is built into python-2.6+ so EPEL6 and all non-EOL Fedora
are okay).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781624] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781624 package.maintai...@opalang.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-02-01 18:54:47 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(methe...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #9 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 19:12:07 EST --- Sorry for the delay folks. I submitted this review many months back and forgot about it entirely. Thanks to Scott Tsai for the spec file changes and dropping me a reminder offlist. http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/libwebp.spec http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786634] New: Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786634 Summary: Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: package.maintai...@opalang.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://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa.spec SRPM URL: http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opa-0.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Spec URL: http://uploading.com/files/d2ab4686/opa.spec Description: Opa is a unified programming language for web development. This package contains the Opa compiler, that compiles stand-alone web servers including AJAX features, database, etc. from single source files. (see opalang.org) It is my first package submission and I am seeking a sponsor. My name is Rudy Sicard, and I am working for the company that created the language (MLstate). rpmlint output: opa.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: opalang.tar.gz explanation: opalang.org provides no source tarball (only binaries). So I used github repository from generating the tarball (instruction are given in the spec file to reproduce). (tar ball generated by github are no compatible with rpm due to bad naming scheme) The tarball ban be download here to simplify the review. Source : http://download.opalang.org/fedora-package-candidate/opalang.tar.gz Remark, I have several comment where I think something is probably wrong. (search for #PROBLEM in spec file) ps: the dependency ocaml-cryptokit.fc17 is present in koji, but I cannot use it on my fedora system via yum. If you are in the same situation you can download directly the needed packages: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/ocaml-cryptokit/1.4/5.fc17/x86_64/ocaml-cryptokit-1.4-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/ocaml-cryptokit/1.4/5.fc17/x86_64/ocaml-cryptokit-devel-1.4-5.fc17.x86_64.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 786634] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786634 package.maintai...@opalang.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=781624 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 19:22:34 EST --- Successful koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3753938 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 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #13 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr 2012-02-01 19:23:55 EST --- Hello, New upstream bug correction release, and as usual new SPEC, SRPMS files and noarch RPMS packages for testing. New rpmlint reports provided too. Caution: previous version of SRPMS and RPMS files are no longer available on my dropbox shared folder. F-16 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-16 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc16.src.rpm F-16 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/F-16/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc16.noarch.rpm F-17 Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec F-17 SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc17.src.rpm F-17 RPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/Rawhide/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git7850c18.fc17.noarch.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet For F-16 $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc16.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For Rawhide $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-0.1.git23bb914.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-107-g7850c18.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Any comments are welcome! Cordially, -- NVieville -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 Rahul Sundaram methe...@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 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 --- Comment #11 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 19:48:12 EST --- Thanks. Looks like it is going to be a dependency for a few packages and if anyone wants to be a co-maintainer, feel free to apply. I don't expect it to be a big burden. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libwebp Short Description: Library and tools for the WebP graphics format Owners: sundaram Branches: f17 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 786636] New: Review Request: rubygem-unicorn - Rack HTTP server for fast clients and Unix
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-unicorn - Rack HTTP server for fast clients and Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786636 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-unicorn - Rack HTTP server for fast clients and Unix Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guillermo.go...@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://gomix.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-unicorn/rubygem-unicorn.spec SRPM URL: http://gomix.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-unicorn/rubygem-unicorn-4.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Unicorn is an HTTP server for Rack applications designed to only serve fast clients on low-latency, high-bandwidth connections and take advantage of features in Unix/Unix-like kernels. Slow clients should only be served by placing a reverse proxy capable of fully buffering both the the request and response in between Unicorn and slow clients $ rpmlint -v SPECS/rubygem-unicorn.spec SPECS/rubygem-unicorn.spec: I: checking-url http://rubygems.org/downloads/unicorn-4.2.0.gem (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -v /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/rubygem-unicorn-doc-4.2.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm rubygem-unicorn-doc.x86_64: I: checking rubygem-unicorn-doc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://unicorn.bogomips.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) rubygem-unicorn-doc.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/unicorn-4.2.0/ri/Unicorn/TeeInput/client_body_buffer_size%3d-c.yaml %3d rubygem-unicorn-doc.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/unicorn-4.2.0/test/aggregate.rb /usr/bin/ruby 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint -v /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/rubygem-unicorn-4.2.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm rubygem-unicorn.x86_64: I: checking rubygem-unicorn.x86_64: I: checking-url http://unicorn.bogomips.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) 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 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
Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(guillermo.gomez@g |
|mail.com) |
--- Comment #6 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com 2012-02-01
20:25:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
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} =
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 21:52:40 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). f17==devel, at least for a week for so yet. . . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771462] Review Request: Wnotes - Graphical text notes for X Window System display
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771462
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 22:47:15
EST ---
Review:
+ OK
- NA
? ISSUE
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
? License field in spec matches
^^
Wouldn't GPLv2+ be more appropriate than GPLv3 as per the following license
check output?
aclocal.m4: GENERATED FILE
AUTHORS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
ChangeLog: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
config.guess: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
config.sub: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
configure: GENERATED FILE
configure.in: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
COPYING: UNKNOWN
depcomp: GPL GENERATED FILE
INSTALL: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
install-sh: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
ltmain.sh: GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
main.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE
Makefile.am: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
Makefile.in: GENERATED FILE
missing: GPL GENERATED FILE
NEWS: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
notewindow.cpp: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
README: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
wnote.1: UNKNOWN
? License file included in package
File included is GPLv3. Think this is OK, since the License is 2+.
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
+ Sources match upstream md5sum:
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ spectool -g wnotes.spec
Getting http://wnotes.googlecode.com/files/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz to
./wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 319k 100 319k0 0 294k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 350k
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ md5sum wnotes-1.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7 wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
705276ae654b71987e84ada72b6caad7 ../SOURCES/wnotes-1.2.tar.gz
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
? Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
^^ This is a GUI, right?
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
+ No rpmlint output.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ !rpmlint
rpmlint ../SPECS/wnotes.spec wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/wnotes-*.rpm
wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/main.cpp
wnotes-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/wnotes-1.2/notewindow.cpp
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$
+ final provides and requires are sane:
== wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm ==
Provides:
Requires:
libX11-devel
libXpm-devel
== wnotes-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
wnotes = 1.2-1.fc16
wnotes(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16
Requires:
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXpm.so.4()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
== wnotes-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
wnotes-debuginfo = 1.2-1.fc16
wnotes-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.2-1.fc16
Requires:
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
+ Should build on all supported archs
? Should function as described.
^^ I installed and tried to run it. It fails with the following error:
[ankur@ankur result]$ wnote
X Error of failed request: BadName (named color or font does not exist)
Major opcode of failed request: 45 (X_OpenFont)
Serial number of failed request: 23
Current serial number in output stream: 24
[ankur@ankur result]$
You will need to see why this is happening and correct the package.
Unfortunately, this is a BLOCKER.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
+ Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. Please see why it fails to run.
2. Please check the License, I feel GPLv2+ is more apt than 3.
3. A desktop file needs to be included if this is a GUI app.
Thanks,
Ankur
--
Configure bugmail:
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-01 23:42:23 --- Comment #13 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 23:42:23 EST --- @John Ellson, I have built for Rawhide and Fedora 16 as well. Do let me know if you need any further help from me. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libwebp-0.1.3-1.fc16 Closing this review request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786668] New: Review Request: python-sqlite3dbm - SQLite-backed dictionary conforming to the dbm interface
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-sqlite3dbm - SQLite-backed dictionary conforming to the dbm interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786668 Summary: Review Request: python-sqlite3dbm - SQLite-backed dictionary conforming to the dbm interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: i...@ianweller.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://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-sqlite3dbm/0.1.4-1/python-sqlite3dbm.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-sqlite3dbm/0.1.4-1/python-sqlite3dbm-0.1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This module provides a SQLite-backed dictionary conforming to the dbm interface, along with a shelve class that wraps the dict and provides serialization for it. Required for python-mwlib, needed by the Docs Project. More information: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/mwlib_status -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781705] Review Request: perl-System-Command - Object for running system commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781705 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:41:06 EST --- Review:- + koji build (f17) - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3754350 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + License is valid + source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 112139a7fa1d0d9e2ea0f7b6295f204c1fa46b3d System-Command-1.06.tar.gz 112139a7fa1d0d9e2ea0f7b6295f204c1fa46b3d ../SOURCES/System-Command-1.06.tar.gz + Build test gave All tests successful. Files=10, Tests=180, 9 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr 0.01 sys + 0.68 cusr 0.17 csys = 0.93 CPU) + Package perl-System-Command-1.06-1.fc17.noarch = Provides: perl(System::Command) = 1.06 Requires: perl = 0:5.006 perl(Carp) perl(Cwd) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IPC::Open3) perl(List::Util) perl(POSIX) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + Follows packaging guidelines. 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 781795] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M - Introspect many-to-many shortcuts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781795 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:41:37 EST --- Review:- + koji build (f17) - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3754336 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + License is valid + source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 0087aa7bf69beae23f03a8c7087f7cdbdf34382c DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M-0.001001.tar.gz 0087aa7bf69beae23f03a8c7087f7cdbdf34382c ../SOURCES/DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M-0.001001.tar.gz + make test gave All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=3, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.09 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.11 CPU) + Package perl-DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M-0.001001-1.fc17.noarch = Provides: perl(DBIx::Class::IntrospectableM2M) = 0.001001 Requires: perl(DBIx::Class) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + Follows packaging guidelines. 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 781793] Review Request: perl-String-ToIdentifier-EN - Convert Strings to English Program Identifiers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781793 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:48:20 EST --- Review:- + koji build (f17) - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3754338 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + License is valid + source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) c2a7938e31b0c2faf6966b7c0222db8de67db90f String-ToIdentifier-EN-0.06.tar.gz c2a7938e31b0c2faf6966b7c0222db8de67db90f ../SOURCES/String-ToIdentifier-EN-0.06.tar.gz + make test gave All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=805, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.10 usr 0.01 sys + 1.12 cusr 0.07 csys = 1.30 CPU) + Package perl-String-ToIdentifier-EN-0.06-1.fc17.noarch = Provides: perl(String::ToIdentifier::EN) = 0.06 perl(String::ToIdentifier::EN::Unicode) Requires: perl = 0:5.008001 perl(Exporter) perl(Lingua::EN::Inflect::Phrase) perl(String::ToIdentifier::EN) perl(Text::Unidecode) perl(Unicode::UCD) perl(base) perl(namespace::clean) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + Follows packaging guidelines. 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 781706] Review Request: perl-String-CamelCase - Convert underscore_text to CamelCase and back
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781706 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:51:03 EST --- Review:- + koji build (f17) - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3754346 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + License is valid + source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 39878678c5d85d34a9d7c63830f184cac23db43f String-CamelCase-0.02.tar.gz 39878678c5d85d34a9d7c63830f184cac23db43f ../SOURCES/String-CamelCase-0.02.tar.gz + make test gave All tests successful. Files=6, Tests=32, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.01 sys + 0.18 cusr 0.04 csys = 0.27 CPU) + Package perl-String-CamelCase-0.02-1.fc17.noarch = Provides: perl(String::CamelCase) = 0.02 Requires: perl(Exporter) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + Follows packaging guidelines. 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 781705] Review Request: perl-System-Command - Object for running system commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781705 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:58:40 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-System-Command Short Description: Object for running system commands Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781795] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M - Introspect many-to-many shortcuts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781795 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:59:13 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M Short Description: Introspect many-to-many shortcuts Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781705] Review Request: perl-System-Command - Object for running system commands
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781705 Iain Arnell iarn...@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 781795] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M - Introspect many-to-many shortcuts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781795 Iain Arnell iarn...@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 781706] Review Request: perl-String-CamelCase - Convert underscore_text to CamelCase and back
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781706 Iain Arnell iarn...@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 781793] Review Request: perl-String-ToIdentifier-EN - Convert Strings to English Program Identifiers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781793 Iain Arnell iarn...@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 781706] Review Request: perl-String-CamelCase - Convert underscore_text to CamelCase and back
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781706 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:58:53 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-String-CamelCase Short Description: Convert underscore_text to CamelCase and back Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781793] Review Request: perl-String-ToIdentifier-EN - Convert Strings to English Program Identifiers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781793 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:59:02 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-String-ToIdentifier-EN Short Description: Convert Strings to English Program Identifiers Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785199] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-IP - Drop-in replacement for IO::Socket::INET supporting both IPv4 and IPv6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785199 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 01:02:39 EST --- Review:- + koji build (f17) - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3754352 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + License is valid + source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) b54633d4b81cbff28c1e6798c4f2d755518aa153 IO-Socket-IP-0.08.tar.gz b54633d4b81cbff28c1e6798c4f2d755518aa153 ../SOURCES/IO-Socket-IP-0.08.tar.gz + Build test gave All tests successful. Files=16, Tests=153, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.09 usr 0.01 sys + 0.86 cusr 0.11 csys = 1.07 CPU) + Package perl-IO-Socket-IP-0.08-1.fc17.noarch = Provides: perl(IO::Socket::IP) = 0.08 Requires: perl(Carp) perl(Errno) perl(IO::Socket) perl(POSIX) perl(Socket) = 1.95 perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + Follows packaging guidelines. 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 781688] Review Request: lv2-mdaEPiano - LV2 port of the MDA VST piano plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781688 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 01:14:32 EST --- Thanks Orcan! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lv2-mdaEPiano Short Description: LV2 port of the MDA VST piano plugin Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785057] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-Coro - Co-operative multithreaded server using Coro
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785057 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 01:20:37 EST --- Review:- + koji build (f17) - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3754354 + rpmlint on rpms gave perl-Net-Server-Coro.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multithreaded - multicolored perl-Net-Server-Coro.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded - multicolored perl-Net-Server-Coro.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multithreaded - multicolored perl-Net-Server-Coro.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded - multicolored 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. + License is valid + source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 0d33fa51f9ad50dd22a03d1c5b46407f750836e6 Net-Server-Coro-1.2.tar.gz 0d33fa51f9ad50dd22a03d1c5b46407f750836e6 ../SOURCES/Net-Server-Coro-1.2.tar.gz + Package perl-Net-Server-Coro-1.2-1.fc17.noarch = Provides: perl(Net::Server::Coro) = 1.2 perl(Net::Server::Proto::Coro) perl(Net::Server::Proto::Coro::FH) Requires: perl(Coro) perl(Coro::Handle::FH) perl(Coro::Socket) perl(Coro::Specific) perl(Coro::Util) perl(EV) perl(Net::Server) perl(Net::Server::Proto::Coro) perl(Net::Server::Proto::TCP) perl(Socket) perl(base) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) + Follows packaging guidelines. 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 786676] New: Review Request: PicketBox XACML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: PicketBox XACML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786676 Summary: Review Request: PicketBox XACML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ricardo.argue...@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://ricardo.fedorapeople.org/package_review/picketbox-xacml/1/picketbox-xacml.spec SRPM URL: http://ricardo.fedorapeople.org/package_review/picketbox-xacml/1/picketbox-xacml-2.0.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: PicketBox XACML -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785057] Review Request: perl-Net-Server-Coro - Co-operative multithreaded server using Coro
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785057 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-02 01:27:47 EST --- Thanks Parag! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-Net-Server-Coro Short Description: Co-operative multithreaded server using Coro Owners: bochecha Branches: f16 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
