[Bug 758966] Review Request: ghc-warp - Fast webserver library for WAI apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758966 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-warp-0.4.6.3-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-07 02:52:13 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-07 02:52:13 EST --- ghc-warp-0.4.6.3-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736577] Review Request: ghc-snap-core - Snap web framework core 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=736577 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-snap-core-0.5.5-2.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-07 02:48:31 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-07 02:48:31 EST --- ghc-snap-core-0.5.5-2.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 783778] Review Request: libgta - Library that implements the Generic Tagged Arrays file 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=783778 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-02-07 02:49:07 EST --- Thank you for the review, Joonas! I only looked at the size of the rpm file, therefore I didn't notice the documentation is actually 1,7 MB. I added a doc sub-package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787977] New: Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787977 Summary: Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shakthim...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ghc-data-reify.spec SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: ghc-data-reify converts recursive data structures into graphs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787977] Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787977 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-list@redhat. ||com --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan 2012-02-07 02:03:24 EST --- $ rpmlint ghc-data-reify.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-data-reify-devel-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F15, F16, and F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3768047 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3768050 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3768053 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787564] Review Request: fonts-tweak-tool - a GUI tool for customizing fonts per language on desktops using fontconfig.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787564 --- Comment #4 from James Ni 2012-02-07 02:05:44 EST --- Hi Morabity Thanks a lot for your comments, I just update the spec file and source code base on your comment: Spec URL: http://jamesni.fedorapeople.org/fonts-tweak-tool/fonts-tweak-tool.spec SRPM URL: http://jamesni.fedorapeople.org/fonts-tweak-tool/fonts-tweak-tool-0.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Basically, I update the licenses file to LGPLv3+, as well as the header of source files. The spec file is modified based on your comment. I also add a desktop file in package following the guideline you provided. I also try rpmlint on my side, it seems everything works fine. I didn't meet the errors you meet, i install the rpm in a new installed Fedora16 and then run "yum install libeasyfc*" to install all the packages of libeasyfc, after that i run fonts-tweak-tool, the program works as expected. So could you try again? Best Regards James -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Nikola Pajkovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #37 from Nikola Pajkovsky 2012-02-07 01:49:16 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iptraf-ng Short Description: A console-based network monitoring utility Owners: npajkovs Branches: el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787972] Review Request: ghc-dotgen - Simple interface to build .dot graph 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=787972 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-list@redhat. ||com --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan 2012-02-07 01:44:08 EST --- $ rpmlint ghc-dotgen.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-dotgen-0.4.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-dotgen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz -> graph viz, graph-viz, graphic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-dotgen-devel-0.4.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-dotgen-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz -> graph viz, graph-viz, graphic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-dotgen-0.4.1-1.fc15.src.rpm ghc-dotgen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz -> graph viz, graph-viz, graphic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F15, F16 and F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3768021 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3768024 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3768025 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787972] New: Review Request: ghc-dotgen - Simple interface to build .dot graph files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-dotgen - Simple interface to build .dot graph files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787972 Summary: Review Request: ghc-dotgen - Simple interface to build .dot graph files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: shakthim...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ghc-dotgen.spec SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ghc-dotgen-0.4.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: ghc-dotgen provides a simple interface to build .dot graph files for graphviz tools -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #8 from Jorge A Gallegos 2012-02-07 01:38:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Gal, > > Regarding ldconfig in %post section: > > From guidelines: > > Whenever possible (and feasible), Fedora Packages containing libraries should > build them as shared libraries. In addition, every binary RPM package which > contains shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic > linker's default paths > > The key determinate on ldconfig being run in %post section is if the shared > object is in the default linker paths. > > From man ldconfig: > > ldconfig creates the necessary links and cache to the most recent >shared libraries found in the directories specified on the command >line, in the file /etc/ld.so.conf, and in the trusted directories (/lib >and /usr/lib). The cache is used by the run-time linker, ld.so or ld- >linux.so. ldconfig checks the header and filenames of the libraries it >encounters when determining which versions should have their links >updated. Thanks for the feedback, I just fixed the unstripped-binary-or-object warning, according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unstripped-binary-or-object "Solution:- Make sure binaries are executable." - So I basically just made all .so files 0755. This warning does not appear anymore Updated SPEC is http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/uwsgi/uwsgi.spec Updated SRPM is http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/uwsgi/uwsgi-1.0.2.1-2.fc16.src.rpm You can check the changes to the spec at https://gist.github.com/629491ed695cc4004831 and the koji scratch build results at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3768034 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #14 from Jorge A Gallegos 2012-02-07 01:27:30 EST
---
(In reply to comment #12)
See my responses inline
> (In reply to comment #11)
>
> > 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.
>
> The reason I include the gdm src.rpm file is because I didn't find another way
> to compile a gdm plugin outside the gdm's source tree. It is used only during
> compilation and linkage time and it is not shipped with the plugin itself.
>
That sounds weird, and actually sounds like a shortcoming of the GDM plugin
framework and/or the gdm-devel package. I'd still say this is not permisible,
but I'll leave the decision to a more seasoned packager (Steven?)
> > [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
>
> Fixed.
>
Cool!
> > [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)
>
> As far as I understood this is allowed
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL).
>
From that wiki page: "There are several cases where upstream is not providing
the source to you in an upstream tarball. In these cases you must document how
to generate the tarball used in the rpm either through a spec file comment or a
script included as a separate SourceX"
Check that URL I pasted above again, you should actually describe how to create
that tarball from git, not point to the tarball you created
> > [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.
>
> Probably a bug after fixes done after a review. I've updated a new version
> (http://ghammer.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-guest-agent-1.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm) which
> compile on both 32 and 64 bits.
>
Try following Steven's advice and bump the rpm changelog every time you make
changes (hint: rpmdev-bumpspec foo.spec). Also try submitting a koji scratch
build (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system) and paste
the URL each time. In this case I just submitted it and the results are here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3767959
As you can see, there are still some unmet build dependencies:
error: Failed build dependencies:
xorg-x11-server-Xorg is needed by gdm-1:3.2.1.1-6.fc17.x86_64
If you don't want to use koji you can use mock in your machine like this: mock
-r fedora-16-x86_64 rebuild package-1.2-3.src.rpm. This should do a scratch
build in a sanboxed chroot so you can see if all dependencies are met.
> > [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?]
>
> I'm not sure I understand this. I checked with the gdm spec file (as an
> example) and it look pretty much like mine (using %macro expect for
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
>
Fair enough, I suppose if an existing accepted package follows the same tone is
fair to assume this is OK.
> > 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
>
> Why do I need to include it? My build machine doesn't have the python2-devel
> package installed.
>
I was just pointing out the python packaging guidelines.
> > Some additional s
[Bug 761474] Review Request: ibus-european-table - Predictive text for european languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761474 anish changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-07 01:21:22 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769173] Review Request: english-typing-booster typing booster for english language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769173 --- Comment #13 from anish 2012-02-07 01:18:47 EST --- The package is build on koji hence closing the bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 761474] Review Request: ibus-european-table - Predictive text for european languages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761474 --- Comment #16 from anish 2012-02-07 01:21:01 EST --- The package is build in koji hence closing the bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769173] Review Request: english-typing-booster typing booster for english language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769173 anish changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-07 01:19:22 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787096] Review Request: ghc-netlist - A simplified generic netlist for HDLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787096 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-07 01:08:48 EST --- ghc-netlist-0.3.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-netlist-0.3.1-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787096] Review Request: ghc-netlist - A simplified generic netlist for HDLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787096 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787096] Review Request: ghc-netlist - A simplified generic netlist for HDLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787096 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-07 01:08:39 EST --- ghc-netlist-0.3.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-netlist-0.3.1-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787344] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases - Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787344 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-07 01:07:13 EST --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0.42-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0.42-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787344] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases - Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787344 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787344] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases - Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787344 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-07 01:07:04 EST --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0.42-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0.42-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787344] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases - Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787344 --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell 2012-02-07 00:24:06 EST --- Thanks for the review, Petr. BuildRequires are tweaked as you suggested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 --- Comment #20 from Paul Wouters 2012-02-06 22:54:09 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dnssec-trigger Short Description: Daemon which updates/reconfigures DNSSEC resolving Owners: pwouters atkac Branches: f16 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler 2012-02-06 22:27:31 EST --- The remainder of that style is under (BSD and AFL) alright: https://projects.kde.org/projects/extragear/network/telepathy/ktp-text-ui/repository/revisions/master/entry/data/styles/renkoo.AdiumMessageStyle/Contents/Resources/Renkoo LICENSE.txt but the fadomatic stuff needs to be properly attributed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alekc...@googlemail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler 2012-02-06 22:24:26 EST --- This needs the copyright notice and MIT license added, otherwise it is in violation of the license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784944] Review Request: ktp-accounts-kcm - KDE Configuration Module for Telepathy Instant Messaging Accounts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784944 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|alekc...@googlemail.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784944] Review Request: ktp-accounts-kcm - KDE Configuration Module for Telepathy Instant Messaging Accounts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784944
nucleo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||alekc...@googlemail.com
QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |alekc...@googlemail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from nucleo 2012-02-06 22:19:22 EST ---
name: ok
summary: ok
license: ok
handling locale files: ok
Obsoletes/Provides: ok
BuildRequires: telepathy-qt4-deve not needed because ktp-common-internals-devel
requires it.
"rm -f %{buildroot}%{_kde4_libdir}/libkcmtelepathyaccounts.so" is actually not
removes anything. Maybe it should be "rm -f %{buildroot}%{_kde4_libdir}/
libktpaccountskcminternal.so" and remove
%{_kde4_libdir}/libktpaccountskcminternal.so?
ldd shows that libs installed in kde4 requires only versioned
libktpaccountskcminternal.so.4.
This will fix rpmlint warning:
ktp-accounts-kcm.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/libktpaccountskcminternal.so
More detailed description can be added from README.
There are many protocol dependencies:
Requires: telepathy-butterfly
Requires: telepathy-gabble
Requires: telepathy-haze
Requires: telepathy-idle
Requires: telepathy-rakia
Requires: telepathy-salut
Requires: telepathy-sunshine
So maybe it makes sense to place every protocol in subpackage with
corresponding dependency?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784944] Review Request: ktp-accounts-kcm - KDE Configuration Module for Telepathy Instant Messaging Accounts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784944 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alekc...@googlemail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784956] Review Request: ktp-send-file - A File manager plugin to launch a file transfer job with a specified contact
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784956 --- Comment #3 from nucleo 2012-02-06 21:44:17 EST --- BuildRequires: telepathy-qt4-devel also not needed because ktp-common-internals-devel requires 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 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 --- Comment #5 from nucleo 2012-02-06 21:17:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > > The fading javascript is not covered in this license. The code is fadomatic > > and > > is covered under its own license as set by its author. > > If it's the same as this: > https://github.com/phl/Fadomatic/blob/master/fadomatic.js > that's MIT. Looks like this is it: https://projects.kde.org/projects/extragear/network/telepathy/ktp-text-ui/repository/revisions/master/entry/data/styles/renkoo.AdiumMessageStyle/Contents/Resources/Footer.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784956] Review Request: ktp-send-file - A File manager plugin to launch a file transfer job with a specified contact
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784956 --- Comment #2 from nucleo 2012-02-06 21:19:23 EST --- BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is not needed if it not used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784956] Review Request: ktp-send-file - A File manager plugin to launch a file transfer job with a specified contact
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784956
nucleo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||alekc...@googlemail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alekc...@googlemail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from nucleo 2012-02-06 21:13:09 EST ---
Summary: A File manager plugin to launch a file transfer job with a specified
contact.
Is this summary not too long?
# service menu only, desktop validation not required
# in a perfect world, this would get moved to datadir/kde4/services/
%{_kde4_datadir}/applications/kde4/ktp-send-file.desktop
So can be moved to services dir? This can fix rpmlint errors:
ktp-send-file.i686: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/kde4/ktp-send-file.desktop (will be fatal in the
future): value "all/allfiles;" for key "MimeType" in group "Desktop Entry"
contains value "all/allfiles" which is an invalid MIME type: "all" is an
unregistered media type
ktp-send-file.i686: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/kde4/ktp-send-file.desktop required key "Name" in group
"Desktop Entry" is not present
ktp-send-file.i686: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/kde4/ktp-send-file.desktop key "MimeType" is present in
group "Desktop Entry", but the type is "Service" while this key is only valid
for type "Application"
%find_lang %{name} --all-name --with-kde
%find_lang works here without --all-name
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler 2012-02-06 21:07:56 EST --- "The images, css and html is dual licensed under the BSD and AFL license." "BSD" is quite vague without the exact license text… Is there nothing more explicit? > The fading javascript is not covered in this license. The code is fadomatic > and > is covered under its own license as set by its author. If it's the same as this: https://github.com/phl/Fadomatic/blob/master/fadomatic.js that's MIT. The License tag should apparently be: License: GPLv2+ and (BSD or AFL) and MIT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 --- Comment #3 from nucleo 2012-02-06 21:01:10 EST --- There is no desktop files installed in /usr/share/applications so BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is not needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 --- Comment #2 from nucleo 2012-02-06 20:56:57 EST --- Optional dependency TelepathyLoggerQt4 can be packaged or it is not ready 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 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||alekc...@googlemail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from nucleo 2012-02-06 20:52:25 EST --- name: ok summary: ok handling locale files: ok BuildRequires: BR: telepathy-qt4-devel is not needed here because ktp-common-internals-devel requires it. /sbin/ldconfig in %post/%postun: There is libktpchat.so installed in libdir so /sbin/ldconfig is needed. Other libktpchat.so related issue is invalid-soname rpmlint error. license: Code looks like is GPLv2+ but there is in data/styles/renkoo.AdiumMessageStyle/Contents/Resources/Renkoo LICENSE.txt: The images, css and html is dual licensed under the BSD and AFL license. The source files for the bubbles can be found at http://www.itorrey.com/adiumx/ The fading javascript is not covered in this license. The code is fadomatic and is covered under its own license as set by its author. in data/styles/simkete/Contents/README: This Adium style is released under MIT/X11 license rpmlint output: ktp-text-ui.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libktpchat.so libktpchat.so ktp-text-ui.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/kde4/apps/ktelepathy/styles/simkete/Contents/Resources/Header.html ktp-text-ui.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/kde4/apps/ktelepathy/styles/simkete/Contents/Resources/Footer.html 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 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 784945] Review Request: ktp-common-internals - Common internals for KDE Telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784945 --- Comment #2 from nucleo 2012-02-06 20:23:55 EST --- Forgot rpmlint output is ok: ktp-common-internals-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 784945] Review Request: ktp-common-internals - Common internals for KDE Telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784945 nucleo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alekc...@googlemail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alekc...@googlemail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784945] Review Request: ktp-common-internals - Common internals for KDE Telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784945
nucleo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from nucleo 2012-02-06 20:20:30 EST ---
name: ok
summary: ok
license: ok
BuildRequires: ok
devel requires main package; ok
handling locale files: ok
/sbin/ldconfig in %post/%postun: ok
The only issue is unneeded commented lines:
#{_kde4_datadir}/kde4/services/kcm_telepathy_accounts.desktop
#{_kde4_datadir}/kde4/servicetypes/kcmtelepathyaccounts-accountuiplugin.desktop
#{_kde4_datadir}/kde4/services/kcmtelepathyaccounts_plugin_sunshine.desktop
#{_kde4_libdir}/kde4/kcmtelepathyaccounts_plugin_butterfly.so
Please remove them before commit.
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 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-06 20:10:33 --- Comment #11 from Cole Robinson 2012-02-06 20:10:33 EST --- Built now -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787293] Review Request: sparkleshare - Easy file sharing based on git repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787293 Kyle J. Harms changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kyle.ha...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Kyle J. Harms 2012-02-06 19:52:23 EST --- This spec does not build the nautilus extensions for gnome 3, since it is the default desktop in f16. Which you'll need nautilus-python >= 1.1. However, this will depend on this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753364 Further, since this is building the nautilus 2 extensions you do need a Requires: nautilus-python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787564] Review Request: fonts-tweak-tool - a GUI tool for customizing fonts per language on desktops using fontconfig.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787564 --- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-02-06 19:47:56 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > - I don't think the version condition on libeasyfc is necessary, since only > Fedora 16 and Rawhide provide libeasyfc, at version 0.5. Rawhide has version 0.6, in fact. But it doesn't change my advice about the version ;) By the way, since your package seems to require pygobject3 and gtk3, you must add them as Requires in your .spec file. Moreover, since fonts-tweak-tool is a graphical tool, you must provide a .desktop file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files If you need an icon for your project, you could request the Design team (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Design#What_We_Do) to draw one: https://fedorahosted.org/design-team/newticket I tried to test your application, but I get this error under Fedora 16: --- $ fonts-tweak-tool ERROR:root:Could not find any typelib for Easyfc Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/fonts-tweak-tool", line 23, in from fontstweak import tool File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fontstweak/tool.py", line 30, in from gi.repository import Easyfc ImportError: cannot import name Easyfc --- The libeasyfc package is obviously installed (v. 0.5), as well as libeasyfc-gobject -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787878] Review Request: mingw32-icu - MinGW compilation of International Components for Unicode Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787878 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember 2012-02-06 19:21:17 EST --- I believe it would be better to name the source package mingw-icu, like in the example spec file: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Example_Specfile We are likely to get 64 bit MinGW cross compiler in the future, and naming the source package mingw-icu would help with the transition. That way we'll be able to produce mingw32-icu + mingw64-icu binary packages from a single mingw-icu source package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787564] Review Request: fonts-tweak-tool - a GUI tool for customizing fonts per language on desktops using fontconfig.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787564
--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-02-06
19:19:40 EST ---
Some rpmlint issues:
---
rpmlint -i
/home/mohamed/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/fonts-tweak-tool-0.0.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fontconfig ->
configuration
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C fonts-tweak-tool is a
GUI tool for customizing fonts per language on desktops using fontconfig.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/downloads/jamesni/fonts-tweak-tool HTTP Error 404: Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/fonts-tweak-tool
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fontstweak/tool.py
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fonts-tweak-tool
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
---
You can ignore the spelling issues, they are false positive. You can also skip
the missing man page issue, it's not mandatory to have one. But the other
warnings/errors must be solved:
- I suppose the correct URL is https://github.com/jamesni/fonts-tweak-tool
- since you are the developer of font-tweak-tools, you should really fix the
FSF address in the comments of your source code
Now about the .spec file:
- you don't need anymore to set the %python_sitelib macro, its definition is
now provided by the rpm package:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
- the summary is maybe too mysterious: something like " Tool for customizing
fonts per language" may be more explicit, or any other description, at your
convenience
- the Group tag "Development/Tools" is maybe far from corresponding to your
tool. Something like "User Interface/Desktops" is more appropriate.
- You could really take advantage of macros in the Source0 URL:
Source0:
https://github.com/downloads/jamesni/fonts-tweak-tool/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- The BuildRoot tag is not needed anymore, as well as cleaning the build root
(occurrences "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" can be dropped):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
- I suggest you to replace "python-setuptools" by "python2-setuptools" in your
BuildRequires, in case Fedora switches to Python 3 by default.
- I don't think the version condition on libeasyfc is necessary, since only
Fedora 16 and Rawhide provide libeasyfc, at version 0.5.
- The %defattr macro is useless now in %files:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
- The %clean target is useless too:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787344] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases - Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787344 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 19:16:23 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 785619] Review Request: lutok - Lightweight C++ API library for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785619 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 19:14:58 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 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 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 19:15:35 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 783778] Review Request: libgta - Library that implements the Generic Tagged Arrays file 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=783778 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 19:13:32 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 787878] New: Review Request: mingw32-icu - MinGW compilation of International Components for Unicode Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-icu - MinGW compilation of International Components for Unicode Tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787878 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-icu - MinGW compilation of International Components for Unicode Tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tuxa...@o2.pl 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://dl.dropbox.com/u/2448780/mingw32-icu.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2448780/mingw32-icu-4.8.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: MinGW compilation of International Components for Unicode Tools -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785619] Review Request: lutok - Lightweight C++ API library for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785619 Julio Merino changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Julio Merino 2012-02-06 18:34:09 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lutok Short Description: Lightweight C++ API library for Lua Owners: jmmv Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787858] Review Request: bashmount - a menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787858 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787858] New: Review Request: bashmount - a menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: bashmount - a menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787858 Summary: Review Request: bashmount - a menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ja...@tomoyolinux.co.uk 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://repo.tomoyolinux.co.uk/bashmount.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.tomoyolinux.co.uk/bashmount-1.6.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: bashmount is a menu-driven bash script that uses udisks to easily mount, unmount or eject removable devices, without dependencies on any GUI or desktop environment. I am also the upstream author of bashmount. http://sourceforge.net/projects/bashmount/ https://github.com/jamielinux/bashmount This is my first package and I am seeking a sponsor :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783778] Review Request: libgta - Library that implements the Generic Tagged Arrays file 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=783778 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-02-06 17:24:54 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libgta Short Description: Library that implements the Generic Tagged Arrays file format Owners: volter Branches: f15 f16 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786594] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786594 Martin Sourada changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786594 Martin Sourada changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-06 16:49:04 --- Comment #12 from Martin Sourada 2012-02-06 16:49:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > Hope you're feeling better now. > Yes, thank you. > Package is APPROVED. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787344] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases - Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787344 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell 2012-02-06 16:47:04 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases Short Description: Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs 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 787344] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases - Mapping Perl releases on CPAN to the location of the tarballs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787344 Iain Arnell 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 787834] New: Review Request: fishpoll - Client programs for fishpoll server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: fishpoll - Client programs for fishpoll server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787834 Summary: Review Request: fishpoll - Client programs for fishpoll server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: andrea.v...@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://averi.fedorapeople.org/fishpoll/fishpoll.spec SRPM URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/fishpoll/fishpoll-0.1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Daemon to run scripts when triggered from the network -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Cole Robinson 2012-02-06 15:46:28 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-horizon Short Description: Django application for talking to Openstack Owners: crobinso Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #8 from Cole Robinson 2012-02-06 15:43:56 EST --- Agreed, the buildrequires are dumb, I plan on investigating a way to drop it. Thanks a lot for the review! I'll make that spec change when pushing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785785 --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge 2012-02-06 15:33:07 EST --- ok, go ahead ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785785 --- Comment #3 from Richard Shaw 2012-02-06 15:29:51 EST --- It's probably easier to go ahead and do a quick review request for the bundled app as long as you're willing to review it :) Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(mrunge@matthias-r | |unge.de)| --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge 2012-02-06 15:26:07 EST --- license: I'd state this as ASL2 and BSD. You should also comment (in spec), which parts are BSD. I think, it's really strange to require those at build time, but don't want to argue about that. I'd expect you to correct the license field. 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 759712] Review Request: dragonegg - GCC plugin to use LLVM optimizers and code generators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759712 --- Comment #8 from Eric Smith 2012-02-06 15:18:49 EST --- OK, I hadn't noticed the "Minor release bumps for old branches" in the naming guidelines before. I'm a little baffled about how that would come about in a rawhide package, but certainly my spec will need to address 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 759823] Review Request: libkdtree++ - C++ template container implementation of kd-tree sorting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759823 --- Comment #4 from Eric Smith 2012-02-06 15:11:20 EST --- That doesn't make it a static library. Since there is no linked output, it is neither a static library nor a dynamic library. It is just a set of headers. I have packaged it similarly to other Fedora packages that are C++ headers only. I still need to package the python bindings and pkg-config file as requested by Rich Mattes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786213] Review Request: trac-agilo-plugin - A plugin for supporting the Scrum process in Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786213 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi 2012-02-06 15:07:04 EST --- I'll try and find time to review this. Anyone else welcome to review in the mean time. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759712] Review Request: dragonegg - GCC plugin to use LLVM optimizers and code generators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759712 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James 2012-02-06 15:01:43 EST --- The RPM name probably came from somebody doing this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches. While the current Rawhide GCC doesn't have such a trailing number, this could happen again in the future. You'll need a strategy for dealing with it. Good luck with gcc 4.7! I had to fix several of my packages, too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(mrunge@matthias-r ||unge.de) --- Comment #6 from Cole Robinson 2012-02-06 15:00:01 EST --- Matthias, please see comment 2. I tried to provide justification/confusion for those 2 rpmlint warnings. Let me know what you think of those explanations. Those packages are required for Build because we generate the docs at build time, and sphinx seems to actually import the python module code in process of generating the docs (yes, completely annoying but non trivial to work around for the time being). Good spot on the license issue, does that mean I just update the License: tag to specify BSD as well? Or is there more to the process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784847] Review Request: APLpy - The Astronomical Plotting Library in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784847 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-06 14:54:20 EST --- APLpy-0.9.6-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/APLpy-0.9.6-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge 2012-02-06
14:43:37 EST ---
Phew, this may get a little tough
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 %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[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-horizon-doc-2012.1-0.1.e3.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint openstack-dashboard-2012.1-0.1.e3.fc17.noarch.rpm
openstack-dashboard.noarch: W: no-documentation
openstack-dashboard.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime
/usr/share/openstack-dashboard/local/local_settings.pyc 2012-02-06T20:14:22
/etc/openstack-dashboard/local_settings 2012-02-06T20:14:35
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-django-horizon-2012.1-0.1.e3.fc17.noarch.rpm
python-django-horizon.noarch: W: no-documentation
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
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
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-django-horizon-2012.1-0.1.e3.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/785946/horizon-2012.1~e3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 189c537031386cc7f140784bc124a50a
MD5SUM upstream package : 189c537031386cc7f140784bc124a50a
[x]: MU
[Bug 784847] Review Request: APLpy - The Astronomical Plotting Library in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784847] Review Request: APLpy - The Astronomical Plotting Library in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784847 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-06 14:37:10 EST --- APLpy-0.9.6-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/APLpy-0.9.6-3.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-06 14:22:58 EST --- python-ansi2html-0.8.3-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ansi2html-0.8.3-1.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 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 --- Comment #4 from Cole Robinson 2012-02-06 14:20:38 EST --- Thanks Matthias! FYI this package is associated with an F17 feature: http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features/OpenStack_Horizon so I was ideally hoping that it would be committable by tomorrow (F17 feature freeze), but I can probably get an extension if that isn't feasible -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785785
Matthias Runge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge 2012-02-06
14:13:04 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
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[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 pkgdiff-1.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint pkgdiff-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/785785/pkgdiff-1.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 55a856bdfed4781f55980ac813f63bc8
MD5SUM upstream package : 55a856bdfed4781f55980ac813f63bc8
[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.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: 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:
[!]: rfcdiff seems bundled from another site
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/
It is not packaged for fedora and it's a simple shell script, but it violates
imho the no bundled libs policy. You should ask on the fedora-
[Bug 787713] Review request: free-solid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-02-06 14:15:08 EST --- It is not contrary to README, it also says "GNU __Library___ General Public License" there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787713] Review request: free-solid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713
--- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-02-06 14:07:48 EST
---
Contrary to what README, license is noted as LGPLv2+, see licensecheck -r
.
I think the devel sub-package has to require pkgconfig, but I can't find that
in the rules right now.
The devel package needs %{?_isa}, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
I suggest to use the name macro in the files section as well, as you're using
it in other places.
You might want to include the sample dir as documentation to the devel package.
The build fails for me on F16 x86_64:
...
+ autoreconf -i
libtoolize: putting macros in AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR, `m4'.
libtoolize: copying file `m4/libtool.m4'
libtoolize: copying file `m4/ltoptions.m4'
libtoolize: copying file `m4/ltsugar.m4'
libtoolize: copying file `m4/ltversion.m4'
libtoolize: copying file `m4/lt~obsolete.m4'
configure.in:26: required file `../ltmain.sh' not found
autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.40wZ5K (%build)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785785 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge 2012-02-06 13:57:39 EST --- taking this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #20 from MartinKG 2012-02-06 13:58:27 EST --- speed-dreams-rpmlint-output: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/speed-dreams/speed-dreams-rpmlint-output.txt?a=8NX5xTacCfI -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786594 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 13:52:22 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 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 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge 2012-02-06 13:53:56 EST --- I'll do 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 786964] Review Request: libsolv - Package dependency solver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786964 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 13:52:40 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 787713] Review request: free-solid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713 --- Comment #1 from MartinKG 2012-02-06 13:40:07 EST --- Sorry about the rpmlint warnings on the info-files-without-* it's not an upstream bug, definitely not. it's a bug in rpmlint. Note: this bug report was wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 766622] Review Request: perl-Authen-Credential - Abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766622 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Authen-Credential-0.5- |perl-Authen-Credential-0.5- |2.el5 |2.el6 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-06 13:32:52 EST --- perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.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 766622] Review Request: perl-Authen-Credential - Abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766622 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Authen-Credential-0.5- |perl-Authen-Credential-0.5- |2.fc16 |2.el5 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-06 13:32:37 EST --- perl-Authen-Credential-0.5-2.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 786964] Review Request: libsolv - Package dependency solver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786964 Karel Klíč changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Karel Klíč 2012-02-06 13:29:19 EST --- Thank you for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libsolv Short Description: Package dependency solver Owners: kklic Branches: f16 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786594] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786594 Martin Sourada changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Martin Sourada 2012-02-06 13:02:21 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: beefy-miracle-backgrounds Short Description: Beefy Miracle desktop backgrounds Owners: mso Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786594] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786594 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge 2012-02-06 12:53:25 EST --- Hope you're feeling better now. Package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787293] Review Request: sparkleshare - Easy file sharing based on git repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787293
Ofer Schreiber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oschr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Ofer Schreiber 2012-02-06 12:20:17
EST ---
I'm not an official packager yet, but here's my 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]
[oschreib@jerusalem spark]$ rpmlint sparkleshare-0.8.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[oschreib@jerusalem spark]$ rpmlint sparkleshare-0.8.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
sparkleshare.x86_64: E: no-binary
sparkleshare.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
sparkleshare.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/NEWS
sparkleshare.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/LICENSE
sparkleshare.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/AUTHORS
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
1. Any reason why NEWS, LICENSE and AUTHORS are executable?
2. About the binary issues - sounds like rpmlint doesn't think .exe or .dll are
binaries.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
PASS
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2]
PASS
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
PASS
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
PASS
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]
PASS
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
PASS
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
PASS
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[oschreib@jerusalem spark]$ md5sum *tar.gz
e529adb83ae9ddba68c4b13c3823e2fc sparkleshare-0.8.0.tar.gz
Verified.
PASS
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
PASS
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
N/A
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
PASS
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
N/A
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
Not sure about this one, you should consult with someone familar with mono
packaging.
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
N/A
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. [13]
PASS
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
PASS
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
FAIL
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 17733 Feb 6 18:05
/usr/lib64/sparkleshare/SparkleLib.dll.mdb
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 46565 Feb 6 18:05
/usr/lib64/sparkleshare/SparkleShare.exe.mdb
.mdb shouldn't be executables.
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
PASS
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
PASS
MUST: Large documentation files must g
[Bug 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #19 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2012-02-06 12:12:10 EST --- Git done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 --- Comment #19 from Andrei Lapshin 2012-02-06 11:57:17 EST --- SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11270386/luajit-2.0.0-0.4.beta9.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 Andrei Lapshin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #527109|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #527110|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #527111|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #17 from Andrei Lapshin 2012-02-06 11:53:03 EST --- Created attachment 559690 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=559690 Latest spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 --- Comment #18 from Andrei Lapshin 2012-02-06 11:54:12 EST --- Created attachment 559691 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=559691 Spec diff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 575466] Review Request: gtk-aurora-engine - Aurora GTK+ theme engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575466 --- Comment #28 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 11:47:53 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 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 Eric Christensen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@christensenplace.us AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@christensenplace.us 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 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-02-06 11:39:46 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-06 11:39:46 EST --- Too many nested layers of bundling, retiring 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 787561] Review Request: torsocks - A transparent socks proxy for use with tor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787561
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata 2012-02-06 11:32:10 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[!]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: 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 %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files devel section. This is OK if
packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[!]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[!]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[?]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/787561/torsocks-1.2.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 9bdc8786951e7eec6915433f324f22a4
MD5SUM upstream package : 9bdc8786951e7eec6915433f324f22a4
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[-]: 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.
[-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original ins
