[Bug 786808] Review Request: rubygem-ammeter - Write specs for your Rails 3+ generators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786808 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-15 02:18:40 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #4 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-02-15
02:14:22 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Wouldn't Obsoletes: ruby(shadow) < 1.4.1-16 be better? 1.4.1-15.fc18 was the
> last version of the old package in Fedora and EPEL AFAICT.
>
> Similarly, I think:
>
> Obsoletes: ruby-shadow >= 1.4.1
> Provides: ruby-shadow >= 1.4.1
>
> should be more like:
>
> Obsoletes: ruby-shadow < 1.4.1-16
> Provides: ruby-shadow = %{version}-%{release}
>
Well, the guidelines for obsoleting are pretty clear, so it should really be
the way I mentioned in comment2.
> Is the '*' in the summary going to make life interesting for folks searching
> via yum? Maybe 'Ruby shadow password module' is good?
>
That's probably a good point :) Michael, I think that you should fix this (but
not a blocker on my side).
> (Just some comments from the peanut gallery. Thanks for packaging this Mike,
> and thanks for the review Bohuslav. :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787665] Review Request: rubygem-net-ldap - Net::LDAP for Ruby implements client access LDAP protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787665 --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-02-15 01:49:05 EST --- Thank you for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-net-ldap Short Description: Net::LDAP for Ruby implements client access LDAP protocol Owners: bkabrda 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 787665] Review Request: rubygem-net-ldap - Net::LDAP for Ruby implements client access LDAP protocol
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787665 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 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 787564] Review Request: fonts-tweak-tool - a GUI tool for customizing fonts per language on desktops using fontconfig.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787564 --- Comment #10 from James Ni 2012-02-15 01:38:55 EST --- Hi Mohamed, Have you see the new package i created last week? Do you think it is OK to pass the review? Best Regards James -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790667] New: Review Request: msgpack - Binary-based efficient object serialization 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: msgpack - Binary-based efficient object serialization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790667 Summary: Review Request: msgpack - Binary-based efficient object serialization library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: du...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/msgpack/msgpack.spec SRPM URL: http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/msgpack/msgpack-0.5.7-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: MessagePack is a binary-based efficient object serialization library. It enables to exchange structured objects between many languages like JSON. But unlike JSON, it is very fast and small. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 20:19:54 EST --- gperftools-2.0-3.el6.1 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 790347] Review Request: gfal - grid file access library, library for wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790347 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 20:20:48 EST --- gfal-1.12.0-2.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 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772995 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 20:20:01 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.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 782661] Review Request: ehcache-sizeof-agent - Size of agent for ehcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782661 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 20:19:35 EST --- ehcache-sizeof-agent-1.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ehcache-sizeof-agent-1.0.1-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790628] Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790628 --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer 2012-02-14 19:32:33 EST --- Woah, whoops! This is RH's BZ, never mind :) Carry on :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790628] Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790628 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer 2012-02-14 19:31:41 EST --- Hi Alec. If the license for this package is indeed MIT, then this package can go into Fedora. Please open a review in Fedora's bug tracker, post the link here, and close this ticket as CLOSED INVALID. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790525] Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API 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=790525 --- Comment #4 from Russell Harrison 2012-02-14 19:15:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > > Various unexpanded-macro warnings against file names in the gems doc dirs > > I take it this is commonly seen with ruby gems. If there is action I need > > to > > take to resolve it please let me know. > > Not sure, I'll take a look at it Thanks I appreciate it. > > W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > > /usr/share/gems/doc/dynect_rest-0.4.0/ri/cache.ri > > Its a binary file so I'm not quite sure what is causing rpmlint to issue > > this > > warning. > > Binaries really shouldn't be in the doc directory. Do other packages have > these > cache files? Rpmlint is just making sure things should be in their place and > is pretty pedantic. Warnings are usually just things it thinks you should > check. If you can justify it then we can wave it. I'll run this through > review tomorrow. Near as I can tell its generated by the gem install command for ruby 1.9. This file isn't created for my F16 / EPEL builds so I'm not sure if its to leave it in place or if I need to remove it in my install section. The guidelines on the wiki are still centred around ruby 1.8 and haven't been updated 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 790628] Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790628 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas 2012-02-14 18:47:31 EST --- I have no packages, and thus need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790628] New: Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790628 Summary: Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: leamas.a...@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://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/adobe-source-libraries.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/adobe-source-libraries-1.0.43-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: ASL provides peer-reviewed and portable C++ source libraries. The libraries are intended to be widely useful, leveraging and extending both the C++ Standard Library and the Boost Libraries. It's a dependency of RPMFusion BZ 2140, Bombono-DVD. The srpm is tricky in many respects. One is that as published, it only works on F16. To use it in F15 or F17 (both tested), update to use new boost version. Rpmlint: adobe-source-libraries.src: W: strange-permission get-source.sh 0755L adobe-source-libraries.src: W: invalid-url Source0: adobe-source-libraries-1.0.43-1.47.0.tar.gz adobe-source-libraries.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.43-1.fc15 ['1.0.43-1.fc16', '1.0.43-1'] adobe-source-libraries-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation adobe-source-libraries-doc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/adobe-source-libraries-doc-1.0.43/documentation/performance/index.html 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. I think I can explain all messages as required. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3791148 (f17) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657518] Review Request: perl-Net-Amazon-EC2-Metadata - Retrieves data from EC2 Metadata service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657518 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel 2012-02-14 18:38:58 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Net-Amazon-EC2-Metadata Short Description: Retrieves data from EC2 Metadata service Owners: lkundrak Branches: f15 f16 el6 f17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790154] Review Request: python-mwlib - MediaWiki parser and utility 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=790154 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 18:26:46 EST --- python-mwlib-0.13.3-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-mwlib-0.13.3-4.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 752223] Review Request: racoon2 - an implementation of key management system for IPsec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752223 --- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 18:23:13 EST --- racoon2-20100526a-16.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/racoon2-20100526a-16.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 790154] Review Request: python-mwlib - MediaWiki parser and utility 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=790154 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790154] Review Request: python-mwlib - MediaWiki parser and utility 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=790154 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 18:24:49 EST --- python-mwlib-0.13.3-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-mwlib-0.13.3-4.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790525] Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API 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=790525 John (J5) Palmieri changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jo...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from John (J5) Palmieri 2012-02-14 18:06:32 EST --- > W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dynect -> Connect > Its the correct name of the service to which this gem communicates We can just wave that as a false positive > Various unexpanded-macro warnings against file names in the gems doc dirs > I take it this is commonly seen with ruby gems. If there is action I need to > take to resolve it please let me know. Not sure, I'll take a look at it > W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/gems/doc/dynect_rest-0.4.0/ri/cache.ri > Its a binary file so I'm not quite sure what is causing rpmlint to issue this > warning. Binaries really shouldn't be in the doc directory. Do other packages have these cache files? Rpmlint is just making sure things should be in their place and is pretty pedantic. Warnings are usually just things it thinks you should check. If you can justify it then we can wave it. I'll run this through review tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790525] Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API 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=790525 Russell Harrison changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rharr...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Russell Harrison 2012-02-14 17:47:17 EST --- My original spec was written to build for f16 and el6 I've updated the spec / package to build properly under rawhide. New URLs Spec URL: http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-dynect_rest-0.4.0-1.fc18.spec SRPM URL: http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-dynect_rest-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm The new spec / srpm passes the automated checks from 'fedora-review -v -n rubygem-dynect_rest' with the exception of rpmlint output. http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-dynect_rest-0.4.0-1.fc18-rpmlint.out Comments / questions I have on these warnings: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Dynect -> Connect Its the correct name of the service to which this gem communicates Various unexpanded-macro warnings against file names in the gems doc dirs I take it this is commonly seen with ruby gems. If there is action I need to take to resolve it please let me know. W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/gems/doc/dynect_rest-0.4.0/ri/cache.ri Its a binary file so I'm not quite sure what is causing rpmlint to issue this warning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769794] new package: rpm2targz
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769794 --- Comment #3 from Christoph Brill 2012-02-14 17:32:35 EST --- Sorry, I was to busy to deeply read the documentation you provided. As soon as I read it I will update this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 598860] Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP 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=598860 --- Comment #13 from Nikos Roussos 2012-02-14 16:32:22 EST --- Actually you're using tabs instead of spaces :) And in some cases you're mixing them. Use either spaces or tabs (spaces preferable). It's not against the policy, but it would make the spec far more readable. Add some descriptive comments or/and upstream links on patches https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment You could add build requires dependencies one per line. It's more readable. Use the full length of a line for description, up to 80 characters. I'm not sure it's a good idea to add an echo command on %install section. If you want to give some information to the user, better add a README.Fedora or add some info on 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 790347] Review Request: gfal - grid file access library, library for wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790347 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790347] Review Request: gfal - grid file access library, library for wlcg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790347 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 16:35:09 EST --- gfal-1.12.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal-1.12.0-2.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 783683] Review Request: cptutils - Utilities to manipulate and translate color gradients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783683 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-02-14 16:30:58 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cptutils Short Description: Utilities to manipulate and translate color gradients Owners: volter Branches: f15 f16 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 783683] Review Request: cptutils - Utilities to manipulate and translate color gradients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783683 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-02-14 16:28:17 EST --- Flex is not necessary, I'll remove it. 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 789611] Review Request: jackson - Jackson Java JSON-processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789611
--- Comment #4 from Andy Grimm 2012-02-14 16:09:11 EST ---
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output [1]:
jackson.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Jackson
jackson.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jackson-1.9.4/release-notes/lgpl/LGPL2.1
jackson-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs,
Java-docs, Avocados
jackson-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jackson-javadoc-1.9.4/release-notes/lgpl/LGPL2.1
jackson.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Jackson
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [2]
License type: ASL 2.0 or LGPLv2
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL. [3]
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building[1]
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[!] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar [2]
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
=== Issues ===
[1] The incorrect FSF address in the lgpl license file should be corrected by
the upstream maintainer. Please notify them of this error. The correct
address is: 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301
[2] The license is given as ASL 2.0 in the spec file, but appears to be "ASL
2.0 or LGPLv2"
[3] This is a minor thing, but it is preferred that macros not be used in
source URLs, so that they can easily be copied and pasted into a browser or
curl/wget command.
Please correct #2 and #3, and I will approve the package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraprojec
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 15:50:17 EST --- gperftools-2.0-3.el6.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gperftools-2.0-3.el6.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 15:49:59 EST --- gperftools-2.0-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gperftools-2.0-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 15:49:50 EST --- gperftools-2.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gperftools-2.0-3.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 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 15:50:07 EST --- gperftools-2.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gperftools-2.0-3.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790564] New: Review Request: glassfish-fi - Development/Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: glassfish-fi - Development/Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790564 Summary: Review Request: glassfish-fi - Development/Libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: juan.hernan...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, mgold...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Depends on: 790553 Blocks: 652183 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/glassfish-fi/2/glassfish-fi.spec SRPM URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/glassfish-fi/2/glassfish-fi-1.2.12-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Fast Infoset specifies a standardized binary encoding for the XML Information Set. An XML infoset (such as a DOM tree, StAX events or SAX events in programmatic representations) may be serialized to an XML 1.x document or, as specified by the Fast Infoset standard, may be serialized to a fast infoset document. Fast infoset documents are generally smaller in size and faster to parse and serialize than equivalent XML documents. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790553] Review Request: xsom - XML Schema Object Model (XSOM)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790553 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||790564 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789602] Review Request: codemodel - Java library for code generators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789602 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Andy Grimm 2012-02-14 15:38:47 EST --- Confirmed that the koji build works, the jar names have been corrected, and the bundled jar has been removed. 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 723752] Review Request: lrslib - Reverse search for vertex enumeration/convex hull problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723752 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||790560 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790560] Review Request: vinci - Algorithms for volume computation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790560 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||723752 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790560] New: Review Request: vinci - Algorithms for volume computation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: vinci - Algorithms for volume computation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790560 Summary: Review Request: vinci - Algorithms for volume computation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganje...@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://jjames.fedorapeople.org/vinci/vinci.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/vinci/vinci-1.0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The volume is one of the central properties of a convex body, and volume computation is involved in many hard problems. Applications range from rather classical ones as in convex optimization to problems in remote fields like algebraic geometry where the number of common roots of polynomials can be related to a special polytope volume. Part of the fascination of the subject stems from the discrepancy between the intuitive notion of "volume" and the actual hardness of computing it. Despite this discouraging complexity - algorithms in general need exponential time in the input dimension - steadily growing computer power enables us to attack problems of practical interest. Vinci is an easy to install C package that implements the state of the art algorithms for volume computation. It is the fruit of a research project carried out at the IFOR (Institute for Operations Research) at ETH Zürich, in collaboration with Benno Büeler and Komei Fukuda. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790551 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2012-02-14 15:35:20 EST --- tomcat5 has been deprecated and removed from the distro. I really recommend using tomcat (version 7) or at least tomcat6 api subpackages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790553] Review Request: xsom - XML Schema Object Model (XSOM)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790553 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||790549 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790549] Review Request: relaxngcc - RELAX NG Compiler Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790549 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||790553 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790553] New: Review Request: xsom - XML Schema Object Model (XSOM)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xsom - XML Schema Object Model (XSOM) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790553 Summary: Review Request: xsom - XML Schema Object Model (XSOM) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: juan.hernan...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, mgold...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 652183 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/xsom/2/xsom.spec SRPM URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/xsom/2/xsom-20110809-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: XML Schema Object Model (XSOM) is a Java library that allows applications to easily parse XML Schema documents and inspect information in them. It is expected to be useful for applications that need to take XML Schema as an input. The library is a straight-forward implement of "schema components" as defined in the XML Schema spec part 1. Refer to this specification of how this object model works. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] New: hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790551 Summary: hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: agr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Name: hessian Version : 4.0.7 License : ASL 1.1 URL : http://hessian.caucho.com/ Summary : Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services Description : This is the Java implementation of Caucho's Hessian binary transport protocol for web services. SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/hessian.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/hessian-4.0.7-2.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783066] Review Request: LogService - DIET middleware logging service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783066 adev changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ade...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790551 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723752] Review Request: lrslib - Reverse search for vertex enumeration/convex hull problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723752 --- Comment #12 from Jerry James 2012-02-14 15:07:20 EST --- New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/lrslib/lrslib.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/lrslib/lrslib-4.2c-3.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 790549] New: Review Request: relaxngcc - RELAX NG Compiler Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: relaxngcc - RELAX NG Compiler Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790549 Summary: Review Request: relaxngcc - RELAX NG Compiler Compiler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: juan.hernan...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, mgold...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 652183 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/relaxngcc/3/relaxngcc.spec SRPM URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/relaxngcc/3/relaxngcc-1.12-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: RelaxNGCC is a tool for generating Java source code from a given RELAX NG grammar. By embedding code fragments in the grammar like yacc or JavaCC, you can take appropriate actions while parsing valid XML documents against the grammar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782661] Review Request: ehcache-sizeof-agent - Size of agent for ehcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782661 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-14 14:53:27 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790540] Review Request: python-liblarch_gtk - Liblarch gtk binding for use in Gtk.Treevew
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790540 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||790538 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790538] Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||790540 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790538] New: Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790538 Summary: Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yan...@declera.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://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Liblarch is a python library built to easily handle data structure such as lists, trees and directed acyclic graphs. Needed by latest Getting Things Gnome! development. python-liblarch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir 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 790540] New: Review Request: python-liblarch_gtk - Liblarch gtk binding for use in Gtk.Treevew
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-liblarch_gtk - Liblarch gtk binding for use in Gtk.Treevew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790540 Summary: Review Request: python-liblarch_gtk - Liblarch gtk binding for use in Gtk.Treevew Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yan...@declera.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://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch_gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-liblarch/python-liblarch_gtk-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: liblarch-gtk is a liblarch binding that will allow you to use your data structure into a Gtk.Treeview. Needed by latest Getting Things Gnome! development. python-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) liblarch -> lib larch, lib-larch, oligarch python-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gtk -> gt, gt k python-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Treevew -> Reeve python-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C liblarch gtk binding for use in Gtk.Treevew python-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liblarch -> lib larch, lib-larch, oligarch python-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k python-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Treeview -> Tree view, Tree-view, Preview 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 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 782661] Review Request: ehcache-sizeof-agent - Size of agent for ehcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782661 David Nalley 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 782661] Review Request: ehcache-sizeof-agent - Size of agent for ehcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782661 --- Comment #4 from David Nalley 2012-02-14 14:37:26 EST --- Sorry about that New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ehcache-sizeof-agent Short Description: Sige of agent for ehcache Owners: ke4qqq arg Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789602] Review Request: codemodel - Java library for code generators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789602 --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández 2012-02-14 14:32:36 EST --- The package failed to build because it was missing the build requirement for maven-surefire-provider-junit4. Fixed, did an scratch build and now works. Find the updated spec and SRPMS here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/codemodel/3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782661] Review Request: ehcache-sizeof-agent - Size of agent for ehcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782661 David Nalley 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 782661] Review Request: ehcache-sizeof-agent - Size of agent for ehcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782661 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-14 14:29:21 EST --- agrimm is not a valid FAS account. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786587] Review Request: network-manager-applet - applet, editor, and private libs for NetworkManager GUI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786587 --- Comment #3 from Dan Williams 2012-02-14 14:17:03 EST --- Updated, thanks for the review! I've uploaded the new copies to the same 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 783066] Review Request: LogService - DIET middleware logging service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783066 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-14 14:14:05 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f17. adev, please take ownership of review BZs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790519] Review Request: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving 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=790519 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-14 14:14:29 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 790531] New: Review Request: PyQt4-webkit - Python bindings for Qt4 Webkit package epel 6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4-webkit - Python bindings for Qt4 Webkit package epel 6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790531 Summary: Review Request: PyQt4-webkit - Python bindings for Qt4 Webkit package epel 6 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: el6 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-rev...@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://than.fedorapeople.org/PyQt4-webkit.spec SRPM URL: http://than.fedorapeople.org/PyQt4-webkit-4.6.2-8.el6.src.rpm This is a PyQt4 webkit package that can be installed in parallel with the RHEL PyQt4 package. It provides webkit support and will only be requested for the el6 branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-02-14 14:01:37 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gperftools Short Description: Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools Owners: spot Branches: el6 f15 f16 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 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jared Smith 2012-02-14 13:52:36 EST --- OK, that updated spec file clears up my remaining concerns. PACKAGE IS APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783066] Review Request: LogService - DIET middleware logging service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783066 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar 2012-02-14 13:51:46 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: LogService Short Description: DIET middleware logging service Owners: hguemar Branches: f15 f16 el5 el6 InitialCC: hguemar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790525] Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API 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=790525 Russell Harrison changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Russell Harrison 2012-02-14 13:54:00 EST --- I did forget to add this is my first package and I do need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783683] Review Request: cptutils - Utilities to manipulate and translate color gradients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783683 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James 2012-02-14 13:47:15 EST --- Is the flex BR really necessary? I don't see flex being invoked during the build. +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: cptutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ggr -> gr, gar, mgr cptutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpt -> pct, cot, ct cptutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US avl -> val, av, lav cptutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lut -> loot, ult, lit cptutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmedcon -> consumed cptutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svg -> avg, sag, VG cptutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grd -> gr, rd, grid 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Those are all innocuous. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [+] license field matches the actual license [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum is 46a1e1a22e75c84514b6515f3ccad1d8 for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires: [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contain available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [+] package functions as described: light testing only [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts If the flex BR isn't necessary, please remove it. Otherwise, this package looks great. 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 787364] Review Request: clipgrab - Streaming videos plate-forms grabber
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787364 --- Comment #6 from Pierre Dorbais 2012-02-14 13:48:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > According to the code, license is GPLv3+. > > Throw away the defattr line, it is not necessary. "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" is > outdated too. > > Should that really be "plate-forms" and not "platform"? > > As you're not defining or using MIME types, neither installing icons in the > hicolor directory, all of the scriptlets are useless. > > Please preserve the timestamps when installing, where it makes sense. For > instance, use cp -p icon.png ... > > Commonly _datadir is used instead of _datarootdir. > > Please use the name macro consistently. OK, fixed (In reply to comment #4) > I can't find your name in the packagers group. Do you have a sponsor yet? If > not, please follow point 3: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Strangely I'm not in Packagers groups (my screenname is chdorb) however my sponsor is mtasaka and I've already created two packages (ciso and vifm). I don't understand... -- [chdorb@chdorb-desktop rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/clipgrab.spec RPMS/i686/clipgrab-3.1.3.0-2.fc16.i686.rpm RPMS/i686/clipgrab-debuginfo-3.1.3.0-2.fc16.i686.rpm SRPMS/clipgrab-3.1.3.0-2.fc16.src.rpm clipgrab.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary clipgrab 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Spec URL: http://pierre.dorbais.free.fr/rpms/clipgrab.spec SRPM URL: http://pierre.dorbais.free.fr/rpms/clipgrab-3.1.3.0-2.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 790525] New: Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API 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: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790525 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@russellharrison.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://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-dynect_rest-0.4.0-1.spec SRPM URL: http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-dynect_rest-0.4.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Ruby gem to use the Dynect services REST API -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781260] Review Request: leechcraft - A Free Open Source Cross-Platform Modular Internet-Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781260 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|rdie...@math.unl.edu|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter 2012-02-14 13:45:00 EST --- I was about to start review, but will be busy until at least the 20th, so I'll pick it up again then if no one beats me to it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790519] New: Review Request: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving 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: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790519 Summary: Review Request: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: agr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Name: aspectjweaver Version : 1.6.12 License : EPL URL : http://eclipse.org/aspectj/ Summary : Java byte-code weaving library Description : The AspectJ Weaver supports byte-code weaving for aspect-oriented programming (AOP) in java. SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/aspectjweaver.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/aspectjweaver-1.6.12-2.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785923] Review Request: xgap - GUI for GAP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785923 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at 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 790512] Review Request: jboss-ejb-client - JBoss EJB client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790512 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||730234 Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730234] Review Request: jboss-ejb-3.1-api - EJB 3.1 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=730234 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||790512 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790512] New: Review Request: jboss-ejb-client - JBoss EJB client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-ejb-client - JBoss EJB client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790512 Summary: Review Request: jboss-ejb-client - JBoss EJB client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-ejb-client/1/jboss-ejb-client.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-ejb-client/1/jboss-ejb-client-1.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Client library for EJB applications working against JBoss AS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789611] Review Request: jackson - Jackson Java JSON-processor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789611 --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández 2012-02-14 13:12:12 EST --- Updated the package to use the latest upstream version 1.9.4. The updated spec and SRPM are available here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jackson/1.9.4-1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783683] Review Request: cptutils - Utilities to manipulate and translate color gradients
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783683 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James 2012-02-14 12:56:06 EST --- I'll take this 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 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-02-14 12:48:15 EST --- %defattr() is no longer necessary in current versions of Fedora. As to the no-binary error, I reworked the package so that there is now a "pprof" subpackage which is noarch, and the rest of the packages are arch specific. This sidesteps the issue of having to make the "main" package noarch with an ExclusiveArch rule. New SRPM: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/gperftools-2.0-2.fc17.src.rpm New SPEC: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/gperftools.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 790259] Review Request: aopalliance - Java/J2EE AOP standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790259 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-02-14 12:41:25 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith 2012-02-14 12:37:30
EST ---
[jsmith@hat-trick review]$ rpmlint gperftools.spec
gperftools.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://gperftools.googlecode.com/files/gperftools-2.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[jsmith@hat-trick review]$ rpmlint gperftools-2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
gperftools.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) malloc -> mallow
gperftools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Perf -> Serf, Perl,
Peru
gperftools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
gperftools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US malloc -> mallow
gperftools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile,
profiles, profiled
gperftools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpu -> CPU, cup, cu
gperftools.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://gperftools.googlecode.com/files/gperftools-2.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
[jsmith@hat-trick x86_64]$ rpmlint gperftools-2.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
gperftools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) malloc -> mallow
gperftools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Perf -> Serf, Perl,
Peru
gperftools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch,
mufti
gperftools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US malloc -> mallow
gperftools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile,
profiles, profiled
gperftools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpu -> CPU, cup, cu
gperftools.x86_64: E: no-binary
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
[jsmith@hat-trick x86_64]$ rpmlint gperftools-devel-2.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
gperftools-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[jsmith@hat-trick x86_64]$ rpmlint gperftools-libs-2.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
gperftools-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtcmalloc ->
allocation
gperftools-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libprofiler ->
profiterole
gperftools-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted
in the review.
$ rpmlint
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] 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.
[jsmith@hat-trick review]$ md5sum gperftools-2.0.tar.gz; curl -s -o -
http://gperftools.googlecode.com/files/gperftools-2.0.tar.gz | md5sum -
13f6e8961bc6a26749783137995786b6 gperftools-2.0.tar.gz
13f6e8961bc6a26749783137995786b6 -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ O K ] 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.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ O
[Bug 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772995 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 12:25:13 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-xioperf-3.0-2.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 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772995 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 12:25:51 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-xioperf-3.0-2.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 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772995 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 12:25:30 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-xioperf-3.0-2.el4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772995 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772995 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 12:25:21 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-xioperf-3.0-2.el5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772995] Review Request: globus-xioperf - XIO Performance Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772995 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 12:25:42 EST --- globus-xioperf-3.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-xioperf-3.0-2.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 789602] Review Request: codemodel - Java library for code generators
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789602 --- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández 2012-02-14 12:09:26 EST --- Thanks for the comments Andy. An updated spec and SRPM addressing the issues is available here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/codemodel/2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790259] Review Request: aopalliance - Java/J2EE AOP standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790259 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Andy Grimm 2012-02-14 12:06:39 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aopalliance Short Description: Java/J2E AOP standards Owners:arg New Branches: f17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790468] Review Request: gperftools - Very fast malloc and performance analysis tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790468 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790497] Review Request: jboss-jms-1.1-api - JBoss JMS API 1.1 Spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790497 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790497] New: Review Request: jboss-jms-1.1-api - JBoss JMS API 1.1 Spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-jms-1.1-api - JBoss JMS API 1.1 Spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790497 Summary: Review Request: jboss-jms-1.1-api - JBoss JMS API 1.1 Spec Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jms-1.1-api/1/jboss-jms-1.1-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jms-1.1-api/1/jboss-jms-1.1-api-1.0.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Java Messaging Service 1.1 API classes Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3790302 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790259] Review Request: aopalliance - Java/J2EE AOP standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790259 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790259] Review Request: aopalliance - Java/J2EE AOP standards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790259
--- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández 2012-02-14
11:31:30 EST ---
Result of rpmlint of the SRPM:
aopalliance.src: W: invalid-url Source0: aopalliance-src.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Result of rpmlint of the RPMs:
aopalliance.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3790110
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
=== Issues ===
1. rpmlint complains about the source URL, but this is normal because the
source is extracted from SCM.
2. rpmlint complains about missing documentation, but there is no documentation
in the upstream source.
*** 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 751119] Review Request: perl-Judy - Perl wrapper for Judy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751119 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784156] Review Request: uwsgi - Fast, self-healing, application container server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784156
--- Comment #11 from Steven Dake 2012-02-14 11:13:46 EST ---
Gal
couple comments inline
(In reply to comment #9)
> I've been asked to publish a full review report.
>
> [PASS] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
> build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
>
The review process requires that the output of rpmlint on all binaries and
source rpm files be posted in the review.
> [PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
> Guidelines.
>
> [PASS] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
>
> [PASS] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
>
> [PASS] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
> meet the Licensing Guidelines.
>
> [PASS] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
>
> [PASS] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
> license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
> license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
>
This is only done for the main package. It should be done for every package
(devel, plugin-*, so this requirement FAILS.
> [PASS] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
>
> [PASS] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
>
> [PASS] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
> source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this
> task.
> If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source
> URL
> Guidelines for how to deal with this.
>
Typically you would show the sha256sum in the review. For example:
[root@beast SOURCES]# sha256sum uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz
78280b57a970db7842e4481f8b00f13d011f27b340c869dc1ad28d564d716439
uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz
[root@beast SPECS]# wget
http://projects.unbit.it/downloads/uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz
--2012-02-14 09:06:35--
http://projects.unbit.it/downloads/uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz
Resolving projects.unbit.it... 81.174.68.52
Connecting to projects.unbit.it|81.174.68.52|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 465250 (454K) [application/x-gzip]
Saving to: “uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz”
100%[==>] 465,250 93.5K/s in 5.9s
2012-02-14 09:06:41 (76.9 KB/s) - “uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz” saved [465250/465250]
[root@beast SPECS]# sha256sum uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz
78280b57a970db7842e4481f8b00f13d011f27b340c869dc1ad28d564d716439
uwsgi-1.0.2.1.tar.gz
> [PASS] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
> on at least one primary architecture.
>
> [IRRELEVANT] 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.
>
> [PASS] 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.
>
> [IRRELEVANT] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
> using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
>
> [IRRELEVANT] 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.
rather then irrelevant, NA (not applicable) makes more sense here.
>
> [PASS] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
>
> [IRRELEVANT] 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.
>
> [PASS] 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.
>
are you sure about this? %{_libdir}/%name doesn't appear to be owned by any
package although it is used by a variety of packages. A recommendation on what
package should own this directory would be helpful for the packager as well.
> [PASS] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
> file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
> situations)
>
> [PASS] MUST: Permissions on files must be set p
[Bug 752223] Review Request: racoon2 - an implementation of key management system for IPsec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752223 --- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System 2012-02-14 11:13:02 EST --- racoon2-20100526a-14.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/racoon2-20100526a-14.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 784156] Review Request: uwsgi - Fast, self-healing, application container server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784156 --- Comment #10 from Steven Dake 2012-02-14 11:02:19 EST --- Python2 packages should buildrequires python2-devel python3 packages should buildrequires python3-devel I am not an expert in the plugins you have developed - could you please address whether these build requires make more sense then the python deps you have now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 761319] Review Request: gtkd - It is a D binding and OO wrapper of GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761319 --- Comment #24 from MERCIER Jonathan 2012-02-14 10:43:19 EST --- - upstream has fixed the issue about license - comment about explicit require added into spec file scratch build F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3790060 Spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gtkd.spec SRPMS: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gtkd-1.5.1-20.20120208svn933.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
