[Bug 789251] New: Review Request: jmeters - Multichannel audio level meter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jmeters - Multichannel audio level meter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789251 Summary: Review Request: jmeters - Multichannel audio level meter Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Jmeters is a Jack multichannel audio level meter application. It looks very similar to meterbridge since it uses the same pixmaps. This is another application being moved from the Planet CCRMA repo. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/jmeters.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/jmeters-0.2.0-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789249] Review Request: jkmeter - Horizontal or vertical bar-graph audio levels meter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789249 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Horizontal |Review Request: jkmeter - |or vertical bar-graph audio |Horizontal or vertical |levels meter|bar-graph audio levels ||meter -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789255] New: Review Request: ebumeter - Loudness measurement according to EBU-R128
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ebumeter - Loudness measurement according to EBU-R128 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789255 Summary: Review Request: ebumeter - Loudness measurement according to EBU-R128 Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Loudness measurement according to EBU-R128. Presented at LAC 2011 (thanks to Joern Nettingsmeier !). The only documentation available ATM are the paper, the presentation slides and the video of the LAC 2011 session. This is another package being moved from the Planet CCRMA repo. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/ebumeter-0.1.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/ebumeter.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788815] Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788815
--- Comment #4 from Tim Fenn tim.f...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 03:21:38 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Awesome !
i've mistakenly pasted the wrong download url in my review (i'm sorry, it's my
fault), it should be:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pywebsvcs/ZSI/ZSI-%{version}/ZSI-%{version}.tar.gz
Oh, whoops - I thought I fixed that, apparently I just entered a second,
incorrect address! .
A quick test:
urlgrabber
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pywebsvcs/ZSI/ZSI-2.0/ZSI-2.0.tar.gz
The mock build fails due to tests
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3777577
Since tests doesn't modify their sys.path, they fail to find the ZSI module
(which is not installed yet). To fix that, you can add the ZSI directory to
PYTHONPATH environment variable. PyXML will also be needed as a BR.
I have one more failing tests (the TCtimes one).
Here's a scratch build of a slightly modified version of your package that
builds inside mock.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3777593
Great, thanks. Mental note to myself: do mock tests in rawhide next time to
find these errors. ;)
As soon as you fix the download url, i'll approve this package. Save that,
it's
all green for me.
OK, done:
Spec URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI.spec
SRPM URL: https://sites.google.com/site/timfenn/python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc16.src.rpm
Again, thanks for the help!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788815] Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788815 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 04:02:56 EST --- Well, there's no more blockers holding this package, I approve this package back. scratch build of current reviewed package http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=346 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 --- Comment #2 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 04:48:30 EST --- + Can you please import this packages to EL6 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592
Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mfoj...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 04:47:51 EST
---
Review:
* Packages that contain Ruby Gems must be called rubygem-%{gemname} where
gemname is the name from the Gem's specification.
OK
The Source of the package must be the full URL to the released Gem archive; the
version of the package must be the Gem's version
OK
The package must have a Requires and a BuildRequires on rubygems
OK
The package must provide rubygem(%{gemname}) where gemname is the name from the
Gem's specification. For every dependency on a Gem named gemdep, the package
must contain a Requires on rubygem(%{gemdep}) with the same version constraints
as the Gem
OK
The %prep and %build sections of the specfile should be empty.
OK (Patch is being applied, so %prep is not empty)
The Gem must be installed into %{gemdir}
OK
gem install --local --install-dir %{buildroot}%{gemdir} --force %{SOURCE0}
OK
The package must own the following files and directories:
%{gemdir}/gems/%{gemname}-%{version}/
%{gemdir}/cache/%{gemname}-%{version}.gem
%{gemdir}/specifications/%{gemname}-%{version}.gemspec
It's possible to update guidelines to for excluding cache ^^ ? (not a review
blocker)
=
This package looks safe, license is sane and patching was properly described in
a comment. 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 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 --- Comment #3 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 05:00:05 EST --- + I would need this package for Fedora 16 too. Can you please import it with ruby(abi) = 1.8 and avoid the new Ruby RPM macros? Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788995] Review Request: beefy-miracle-kde-theme - Beefy Miracle KDE Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788995 --- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 05:03:19 EST --- Fixed Fedora version conditionals (has to be coupled with Verne theme) Spec URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/beefy-miracle-kde-theme/beefy-miracle-kde-theme.spec SRPM URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/beefy-miracle-kde-theme/beefy-miracle-kde-theme-16.91.0-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788995] Review Request: beefy-miracle-kde-theme - Beefy Miracle KDE Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788995 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 05:05:30 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: beefy-miracle-kde-theme Short Description: Beefy Miracle KDE Theme Owners: jreznik kkofler than rdieter ltinkl Branches: f17 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 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 #5 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 05:17:04 EST ---
You've corrected the devel package Summary, +1.
The static libraries are gone and the rest is packaged correctly, good.
Documentation is not the case, though. Why do you insist on hardcoded and
absolute paths? How do you know what files are chosen this way? For example,
there are three README files in your project.
This is wrong.
The %doc macro does all the work for you. Just give it relative paths (in your
build directory) to the files you want to package as documentation and it will
do everything you need. Currently it means it places your files into
%{_datadir}%{name}-%{version}-%{release} but don't count on that.
So, how to fix this?
1. Don't override datadir. It's defined by rpmbuild.
2. Replace your current %doc macros with builddir relative ones. Examples
follow:
# This packages ./README and puts it to /usr/share/torsocks-1.2-1/README
%doc README
# This packages ./doc/patches/README and puts it to the same location as the
above
%doc doc/patches/README
# This packages the whole ./doc directory and puts its files to
/usr/share/torsocks-1.2-1/doc/
%doc doc
# You can put specify more files
%doc doc/socks/SOCKS4.protocol doc/socks/SOCKS5
See my suggestions in the first comment and/or how other packages do this if
you're still unsure.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mfoj...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 06:13:43 EST --- Thank you for your review. I'm going to request f16 f17 and el6. See bellow New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rbovirt Short Description: A Ruby client for oVirt REST API Owners: vondruch Branches: f16 f17 el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781870] Review Request: sord - A lightweight C library for storing RDF in memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781870 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781870] Review Request: sord - A lightweight C library for storing RDF in memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781870 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 06:37:19 EST --- sord-0.5.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sord-0.5.0-3.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 786359] Review Request: PyMunin - Python Module for developing Munin Multigraph Monitoring Plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786359 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 07:28:17 EST --- PyMunin-0.9.4-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/PyMunin-0.9.4-2.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 786359] Review Request: PyMunin - Python Module for developing Munin Multigraph Monitoring Plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786359 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 07:36:30 EST --- PyMunin-0.9.4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/PyMunin-0.9.4-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788995] Review Request: beefy-miracle-kde-theme - Beefy Miracle KDE Theme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788995 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 07:54:49 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 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 07:54:02 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 760943] Review Request: perl-Messaging-Message - This perl module provides an abstraction of a message, as used in messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760943 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 07:51:44 EST --- perl-Messaging-Message-0.8-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Messaging-Message-0.8-1.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 760943] Review Request: perl-Messaging-Message - This perl module provides an abstraction of a message, as used in messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760943 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 07:51:24 EST --- perl-Messaging-Message-0.8-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Messaging-Message-0.8-1.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789192] Package Change Request - orc 'The Oil Run-Time Compiler' - SCM Request For EL6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789192 --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 07:55:47 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 579389] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Parser-XS - A fast, primitive HTTP request parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579389 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 07:53:20 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 760943] Review Request: perl-Messaging-Message - This perl module provides an abstraction of a message, as used in messaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760943 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 07:51:35 EST --- perl-Messaging-Message-0.8-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Messaging-Message-0.8-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789332] New: Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to Git repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to Git repositories Alias: perl-Git-Repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789332 Summary: Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to Git repositories Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Git-Repository/ OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: iarn...@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://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Git-Repository.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Git-Repository-1.25-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Git::Repository is a Perl interface to Git, for scripted interactions with repositories. It's a low-level interface that allows calling any Git command, whether porcelain or plumbing, including bidirectional commands such as git commit-tree. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3778598 *rt-0.10_02 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789192] Package Change Request - orc 'The Oil Run-Time Compiler' - SCM Request For EL6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789192 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 09:01:46 EST --- orc-0.4.16-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/orc-0.4.16-6.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789192] Package Change Request - orc 'The Oil Run-Time Compiler' - SCM Request For EL6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789192 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 09:50:34 EST --- rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.5-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 09:48:45 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: 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.
[-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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/789332/Git-Repository-1.25.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : b0a9d52caa4c2d6ca4c7f173a7f07664
MD5SUM upstream package : b0a9d52caa4c2d6ca4c7f173a7f07664
[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.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
TODO: +BR perl(Carp)
TODO: +BR perl(Exporter)
TODO: +BR perl(File::Temp)
TODO: +BR perl(IO::Handle)
TODO: +BR perl(Test::Builder)
TODO: Use %{_bindir} in git file requirements instead of hardcoded /usr/bin
TIP: I'd include Changes and README in perl-Test-Git as well; although
those files
[Bug 788990] Reivew Request: perl-OpenOffice-UNO - Interface to OpenOffice's UNO run-time
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788990 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-02-10 10:03:33 EST --- I can't build the package in Rawhide. Your original SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3778697name=build.log After changing the path to /usr/lib64/libreoffice/sdk/setsdkenv_unix.sh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3778726name=build.log I haven't tried older releases 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 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 10:01:26 EST --- rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.5-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.5-1.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 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 10:02:04 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Git-Repository Short Description: Perl interface to Git repositories Owners: iarnell Branches: f15 f16 f17 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 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 10:17:29 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 789360] New: Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789360 Summary: Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hobbes1...@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://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff-1.41-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The purpose of this program is to compare two versions of an internet-draft, and as output produce a diff in one of several formats: - side-by-side html diff - paged wdiff output in a text terminal - a text file with changebars in the left margin - a simple unified diff output In all cases, internet-draft headers and footers are stripped before generating the diff, to produce a cleaner diff. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/rfcdiff/SRPMS/rfcdiff-1.41-1.fc16.src.rpm rpmbuild/rfcdiff/RPMS/noarch/rfcdiff-1.41-1.fc16.noarch.rpm rfcdiff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml rfcdiff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wdiff - diff, whiff, w diff rfcdiff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changebars - change bars, change-bars, changers rfcdiff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml rfcdiff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wdiff - diff, whiff, w diff rfcdiff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changebars - change bars, change-bars, changers rfcdiff.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rfcdiff-1.41/copyright rfcdiff.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/rfcdiff-1.41/todo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 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 789360] Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789360 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||785785 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||789360 --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 10:24:36 EST --- SPEC: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/pkgdiff/pkgdiff.spec SRPM: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/pkgdiff/pkgdiff-1.0-2.fc16.src.rpm Ok, rfcdiff unbundled and review request submitted! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332
--- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 10:25:42 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
TODO: Use %{_bindir} in git file requirements instead of hardcoded /usr/bin
That's an interesting catch. With /usr move, it makes sense to avoid hardcoding
paths, but technically, Git-Repository only needs git somewhere in $PATH. How
about just {Build,}Requires: git?
TIP: I'd include Changes and README in perl-Test-Git as well; although
those files will be always installed with the base package, I don't think
users will know they should look to the Git::Repository doc directory;
or maybe you could add a special NOTE file with look over there to
Test::Git doc?
Well perl-Test-Git isn't really for users - it's only sub-packaged to avoid
runtime deps on perl(Test::Builder). I'd hope that anyone who really cares
about it would already know it's part of Git-Repository - or be able to find it
on search.cpan.org.
No actual show stoppers. Approving.
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 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 10:58:13 EST --- perl-Git-Repository-1.25-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Git-Repository-1.25-2.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 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 10:58:04 EST --- perl-Git-Repository-1.25-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Git-Repository-1.25-2.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 785436] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Exception - Horde Exception 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=785436 --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2012-02-10 11:21:00 EST --- it seems you have forgotten to update/upload the new spec/srpm (last is January 30) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770283] Review Request: uptimed - A daemon to record and keep track of system up times
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770283 --- Comment #29 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru 2012-02-10 11:28:56 EST --- *compile whithout bundled getopt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770283] Review Request: uptimed - A daemon to record and keep track of system up times
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770283
--- Comment #28 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru 2012-02-10 11:27:28 EST ---
+ OK
/ Not applicable
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[/] 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.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[/] 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.
[?] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[/] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] 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)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share
[Bug 789385] New: Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 Summary: Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- ambdec is an Ambisonic decoder for first and second order. Main features: * 1st, 2nd and 3rd order 2-D or 3-D decoding. * Up to 36 speakers (could be extended). * Optional dual frequency band decoding. * Optional speaker delay and gain compensation. * Optional Near-Field effect compensation. * Built-in test and Mute/Solo for each speaker. * Unlimited number of presets. * Jack client with graphical user interface. This is another port from the CCRMA repository rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ambdec-0.5.1-2.fc16.src.rpm ambdec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ambiosonics - Ambitions 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/ambdec.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/ambdec-0.5.1-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789386] New: Review Request: lilv - An LV2 Resource Description Framework Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lilv - An LV2 Resource Description Framework Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789386 Summary: Review Request: lilv - An LV2 Resource Description Framework Library Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- lilv is a library to make the use of LV2 audio plugins as simple as possible for applications. Lilv is the successor to SLV2, rewritten to be significantly faster and have minimal dependencies. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/lilv-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/lilv.spec rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lilv-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789390] New: Review Request: aeolus - a synthesized organ for ALSA/JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: aeolus - a synthesized organ for ALSA/JACK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789390 Summary: Review Request: aeolus - a synthesized organ for ALSA/JACK Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- aeolus is a synthesized (i.e. not sampled) pipe organ emulator that should be good enough to make an organist enjoy playing it. It is a software synthesizer optimized for this job, with possibly hundreds of controls for each stop, that enable the user to voice his instrument. Main features of the default instrument: three manuals and one pedal, five different temperaments, variable tuning, IDI control of course, stereo, surround or Ambisonics output, flexible audio controls including a large church reverb. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/aeolus.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/aeolus-0.8.4-2.fc16.src.rpm rpmlint ../SRPMS/aeolus-0.8.4-2.fc16.src.rpm aeolus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reverb - revere, revers, revert 1 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 789391] New: Review Request: aeolus-stops - presets for the aeolus organ synthesizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: aeolus-stops - presets for the aeolus organ synthesizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789391 Summary: Review Request: aeolus-stops - presets for the aeolus organ synthesizer Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Presets for the aeolus pipe organ synthesizer - see review bug 789390. rpmlint ../SRPMS/aeolus-stops-0.3.0-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/aeolus-stops.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/aeolus-stops-0.3.0-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788815] Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788815 --- Comment #6 from Tim Fenn tim.f...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 12:39:23 EST --- Quick question: should I request f16 and el6 as branches, if the older python-ZSI is already available 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 789391] Review Request: aeolus-stops - presets for the aeolus organ synthesizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789391 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-02-10 12:54:54 --- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 12:54:54 EST --- This is no longer required -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783632] Review Request: php-phpunit-PHPUnit-SkeletonGenerator - Tool that can generate skeleton test classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783632 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-phpunit-PHPUnit-Skeleto |php-phpunit-PHPUnit-Skeleto |nGenerator-1.0.0-1.fc15 |nGenerator-1.0.0-1.el6 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 13:35:50 EST --- php-phpunit-PHPUnit-SkeletonGenerator-1.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 13:35:44 EST --- PyMunin-0.9.4-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789192] Package Change Request - orc 'The Oil Run-Time Compiler' - SCM Request For EL6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789192 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 13:36:41 EST --- orc-0.4.16-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788592 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 13:37:37 EST --- Package rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.5-1.el6: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.5-1.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-0421/rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.5-1.el6 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788815] Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788815 --- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 13:50:21 EST --- According pkgdb, only Fedora branches have been deprecated, so you can only claim f15/f16/devel. If you want to co-maintain EPEL branches, you should exchange ACLs with EPEL maintainers after Rel-eng has unblocked python-ZSI. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735225] Review Request: axis2c - Web services engine implemented in C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735225 --- Comment #3 from Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 15:05:45 EST --- Updated: http://gholms.fedorapeople.org/review/axis2c-1.6.0-3.fc18.src.rpm http://gholms.fedorapeople.org/review/axis2c-1.6.0-3.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735225] Review Request: axis2c - Web services engine implemented in C
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735225
--- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2012-02-10
15:28:08 EST ---
Okay, so I'm not sure why I originally said the rpmlint errors like this were
safe to ignore:
axis2c.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libaxutil.so
axis2c.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libguththila.so
axis2c.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libaxis2_axiom.so
The unversioned .so files that are simply symlinks to the versioned lib belong
in -devel, which appears to be all of them. I'm not sure about the
httpd/modules/libmod_axis2.so, the schema there seems to imply that versioned
.so files are not being found or used by httpd, so in that specific sort of
scenario, the unversioned .so file is probably fine to stay in the main
package, but everything in %{_libdir} needs to be fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781687] Review Request: lv2-ui - an extension of the LV2 audio plugin framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781687 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||lv2-ui-2.4-4.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-10 16:55:09 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 16:55:09 EST --- lv2-ui-2.4-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781870] Review Request: sord - A lightweight C library for storing RDF in memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781870 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 16:54:03 EST --- Package sord-0.5.0-3.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing sord-0.5.0-3.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1517/sord-0.5.0-3.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760270] Review Request: lv2-avw-plugins - LV2 port of the Alsa Modular Synth modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760270 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||lv2-avw-plugins-0.0.6-3.fc1 ||6 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-10 16:53:44 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 16:53:44 EST --- lv2-avw-plugins-0.0.6-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781687] Review Request: lv2-ui - an extension of the LV2 audio plugin framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781687 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|lv2-ui-2.4-4.fc16 |lv2-ui-2.4-4.fc15 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 17:00:35 EST --- lv2-ui-2.4-4.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 781688] Review Request: lv2-mdaEPiano - LV2 port of the MDA VST piano plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781688 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||lv2-mdaEPiano-0-0.2.git9db4 ||5842.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-10 16:57:04 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 16:57:04 EST --- lv2-mdaEPiano-0-0.2.git9db45842.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789332] Review Request: perl-Git-Repository - Perl interface to 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=789332 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 16:56:56 EST --- perl-Git-Repository-1.25-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788006] Review Request: ghc-temporary - portable temp file 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=788006 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 16:57:49 EST --- ghc-temporary-1.1.2.3-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785943] Review Request: python-gunicorn - Python WSGI application server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785943 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 17:00:28 EST --- python-gunicorn-0.13.4-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781688] Review Request: lv2-mdaEPiano - LV2 port of the MDA VST piano plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781688 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|lv2-mdaEPiano-0-0.2.git9db4 |lv2-mdaEPiano-0-0.2.git9db4 |5842.fc16 |5842.fc15 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 16:59:25 EST --- lv2-mdaEPiano-0-0.2.git9db45842.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 756448] Review Request: mingw-ftplib - MinGW package for ftplib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756448 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 17:00:55 EST --- mingw-ftplib-3.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747765] Review Request: apache-log4j-extras - Apache Extras Companion for Apache log4j
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747765 --- Comment #8 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2012-02-10 17:08:31 EST --- Alexander: Does the patch not accomplish that? If not, I am clearly missing something. (I admit my ignorance upfront) --David -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 file transfer jobs
Please do not reply directly 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 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-10 17:09:20 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:09:20 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-10 17:09:58 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:09:58 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784955] Review Request: ktp-presence-applet - Plasma applet for managing your Telepathy account presence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784955 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-10 17:09:34 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:09:34 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784949] Review Request: ktp-auth-handler - Provide UI/KWallet Integration
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784949 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-10 17:13:32 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:13:32 EST --- imported. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784946] Review Request: ktp-approver - KDE Channel Approver for 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=784946 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-10 17:13:47 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:13:47 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784951] Review Request: ktp-contact-list - Telepathy contact list application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784951 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-10 17:11:25 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:11:25 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784950] Review Request: ktp-contact-applet - Telepathy contact plasmoid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784950 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-10 17:13:18 --- Comment #25 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:13:18 EST --- imported into rawhide, and will look into polishing things once the full switchover from telepathy-kde - ktp stuff is 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 784952] Review Request: ktp-filetransfer-handler - Telepathy file transfer 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=784952 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:18:27 EST --- http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-filetransfer-handler.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-filetransfer-handler-0.3.0-3.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Feb 10 2012 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.3.0-3 - update %%description -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784954] Review Request: ktp-kded-integration-module - KDE integration for 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=784954 --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 17:16:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-kded-integration-module.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-kded-integration-module-0.3.0-3.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Feb 10 2012 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.3.0-3 - fix URL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788815] Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788815 Tim Fenn tim.f...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Tim Fenn tim.f...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 17:50:37 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-ZSI Short Description: python Zolera Soap Infrastructur Owners: timfenn Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: timfenn -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652034] Review Request: python-apipkg - Python namespace control and lazy-import mechanism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652034 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 17:53:07 EST --- python-apipkg-1.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-apipkg-1.0-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652034] Review Request: python-apipkg - Python namespace control and lazy-import mechanism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652034 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788815] Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788815 --- Comment #9 from Tim Fenn tim.f...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 17:52:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) According pkgdb, only Fedora branches have been deprecated, so you can only claim f15/f16/devel. If you want to co-maintain EPEL branches, you should exchange ACLs with EPEL maintainers after Rel-eng has unblocked python-ZSI. OK, I'll go with f15/f16/devel for now, which will resolve the dependency problem for apbs, then work on getting the ACL sorted out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652034] Review Request: python-apipkg - Python namespace control and lazy-import mechanism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652034 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 17:52:48 EST --- python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652034] Review Request: python-apipkg - Python namespace control and lazy-import mechanism
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652034 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 17:52:59 EST --- python-apipkg-1.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-apipkg-1.0-1.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 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-10 18:16:02 EST --- bashmount-1.6.2-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bashmount-1.6.2-3.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 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 #17 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2012-02-10 18:29:08 EST --- Upstream informed about Footer.html license http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/2012-February/008866.html http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-telepathy/2012-February/005432.html So maybe it is enough to add notice about this and add in %doc MIT license from simkete style README? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672395] Review Request: eigen3 - A lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672395 Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com 2012-02-10 18:58:45 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: eigen3 New Branches: el6 Owners: rmattes Required to build the pcl package on rhel6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #18 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 20:08:03 EST --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui-0.3.0-3.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Feb 10 2012 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.3.0-3 - %%doc data/styles/simkete/Contents/README - fix %%doc Renkoo\ LICENSE.txt - License: clarify MIT for data/styles/simkete 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 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 #19 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 20:43:50 EST --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui-0.3.0-4.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Feb 10 2012 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.3.0-4 - mac2unix '.../Renkoo LICENSE.txt' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #20 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 21:17:11 EST --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui-0.3.0-5.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Feb 10 2012 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.3.0-5 - -devel: Requires: ktp-common-internals-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #21 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 21:23:03 EST --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktp/ktp-text-ui-0.3.0-6.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Feb 10 2012 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.3.0-6 - -devel: fix typo in Requires -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 alekc...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alekc...@googlemail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #22 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2012-02-10 22:05:31 EST
---
http://trac.adium.im/wiki/mathuaerknedam ansered me on #adium-devl that he will
look on fadomatic issue, ktp will follow for adium changes
http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-telepathy/2012-February/005434.html
MUST Items:
+ rpmlint output
$ rpmlint ktp-text-ui-0.3.0-6.fc16.i686.rpm ktp-text-ui-0.3.0-6.fc16.src.rpm
ktp-text-ui-debuginfo-0.3.0-6.fc16.i686.rpm
ktp-text-ui-devel-0.3.0-6.fc16.noarch.rpm
ktp-text-ui.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libktpchat.so libktpchat.so
(ignored for now until upstream made it versioned)
ktp-text-ui.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/kde4/apps/ktelepathy/styles/simkete/Contents/Resources/Header.html
(can be ignored because files can be used somehow)
ktp-text-ui.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/kde4/apps/ktelepathy/styles/simkete/Contents/Resources/Footer.html
ktp-text-ui.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ktp-text-ui-0.3.0/Renkoo
LICENSE.txt (no easy way to fix it because file was made from files with
different encodings in wrong way)
ktp-text-ui-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings.
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Package name match the upstream tarball name ktp-text-ui-0.3.0.tar.bz2
+ spec file name ktp-text-ui.spec matches base package name
+ complies with all the legal guidelines:
+ License: GPLv2+ and (BSD or AFL) and MIT valid, matches actual license
(added notices for parts under different licenses)
+ No known patent problems
+ No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
+ COPYING (GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2), README (MIT license), Renkoo
LICENSE.txt (BSD and AFL license) packaged as %doc
+ source matches upstream:
MD5: 893b1eeb962ef2ba79244147c7051e0e ktp-text-ui-0.3.0.tar.bz2
SHA1: b9ba195904d470835e404f37073ed36fc510c791 ktp-text-ui-0.3.0.tar.bz2
SHA256: f735708db55367ab37aa9b21af48ae7390022ba3a9b7c2ee9b369d430df79fa0
ktp-text-ui-0.3.0.tar.bz2
+ builds on at least one arch
build from mock is in F16 kde-unstable repo
+ no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed
+ no missing BuildRequires (builds in mock)
+ locales are handled properly by using %find_lang %{name} --all-name
--with-kde macro
+ ldconfig call used (needed for %{_kde4_libdir}/libktpchat.so shared library)
+ no duplicated system libraries
+ package not relocatable (no Prefix tag)
+ directory ownership correct (doesn't own directories owned by another
package, owns all package-specific directories)
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions correct, %defattr(-,root,root,-) not needed now, executables have
executable permissions
+ macros used where possible (%{name}, %{version}, %{buildroot},
%{_target_platform}, %{cmake_kde4}, %{_kde4_libexecdir}, %{_kde4_libdir},
%{_kde4_datadir}, %{_datadir})
+ non-code content: only permitted content, chat theme, have open source
compatible licenses
+ no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed
+ no %doc files required at runtime
+ header files packaged in -devel subpackage
+ no static libraries, so no -static package needed
+ no devel symlinks which would need to be in a -devel subpackage (in noarh
-devel only headres)
+ devel packages must require the base package
+ no .la files
+ no .desktop file needed in /usr/share/applications for this KDE Telepathy
internal module
+ desktop-file-validate call not needed for service type .dsktop files
installed in %{_kde4_datadir}/kde4/services
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8
+ other packaging guidelines:
+ complies with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (all files in
%{_kde4_libexecdir}, %{_kde4_libdir} and %{_datadir})
+ proper changelog, tags, BuildRequires, Summary, Description (used the only
available description from upstream)
+ no non-UTF-8 characters (except Renkoo LICENSE.txt which have mostly
cosmetic defects)
+ all relevant documentation included as %doc (COPYING README, Renkoo
LICENSE.txt)
+ RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used in %{cmake_kde4} macro
+ debuginfo package is valid (contains stripped symbols from ELF binary and
source code related to it)
+ no rpaths (no check-rpaths error)
+ no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply
+ no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply
+ timestamps are preserved
+ %{?_smp_mflags} used
+ not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't
[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 alekc...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2012-02-10 22:06:17 EST --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 22:12:53 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ktp-text-ui Short Description: Telepathy text chat handler Owners: jreznik rdieter Branches: f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784952] Review Request: ktp-filetransfer-handler - Telepathy file transfer 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=784952 nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com 2012-02-10 22:24:22 EST --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784952] Review Request: ktp-filetransfer-handler - Telepathy file transfer 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=784952 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-10 22:27:16 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ktp-filetransfer-handler Short Description: Telepathy file transfer handler Owners: jreznik rdieter Branches: f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784954] Review Request: ktp-kded-integration-module - KDE integration for 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=784954 nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 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 #6 from Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 2012-02-10 23:12:54 EST --- With your %doc suggestions I still get this error when I build the package: RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/DEBUG /usr/share/README /usr/share/README.TORDNS /usr/share/SOCKS4.protocol /usr/share/SOCKS5 /usr/share/expectedresults.txt /usr/share/run_tests.sh /usr/share/socks-extensions.txt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782000] Review Request: ghc-hashtables - Mutable hash tables in the ST monad
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782000
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2012-02-10
23:32:28 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-hashtables-1.0.1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
ghc-hashtables-1.0.1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-hashtables-devel-1.0.1.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-hashtables.spec
ghc-hashtables.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad - nomad, gonad,
Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad - nomad,
gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typeclass - type
class, type-class, typecasts
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US HashTable - Hash
Table, Hash-table, Washable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups - lockups,
hookups, look ups
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup - lockup,
hookup, look up
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad - nomad, gonad,
Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad - nomad,
gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typeclass -
type class, type-class, typecasts
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US HashTable -
Hash Table, Hash-table, Washable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -
lockups, hookups, look ups
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -
lockup, hookup, look up
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad - nomad,
gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -
nomad, gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typeclass
- type class, type-class, typecasts
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -
lockups, hookups, look ups
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-hashtables-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -
lockup, hookup, look up
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming - Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use
