[Bug 785442] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com Flag||fedora-review? Bug 785442 depends on bug 785424, which changed state. Bug 785424 Summary: Review Request: php-channel-horde - Adds pear.horde.org channel to PEAR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785424 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2012-02-19 03:02:19 EST --- Please - handle locales - remove Conflicts - you can remove Requires of channel and Horde_Exception (implicitly required by Horde_Nls) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794990] Review Request: get-flash-videos - CLI tool to download flash video from websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794990 --- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 04:16:33 EST --- Odd. Works for me. Transient? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 784954] Review Request: ktp-kded-integration-module - KDE integration for telepathy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784954 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-19 04:33:19 --- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-19 04:33:19 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784952] Review Request: ktp-filetransfer-handler - Telepathy file transfer handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784952 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-19 04:33:31 --- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-19 04:33:31 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784958] Review Request: ktp-text-ui - Telepathy text chat handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784958 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-19 04:33:04 --- Comment #42 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-19 04:33:04 EST --- imported -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #13 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 04:55:21
EST ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #9)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/adobe-3/adobe-source-libraries.spec
Just some basic questions/comments:
Thanks!
1. The source download pointed to by the web page is a sf download. You would
usually use a full URL for the Source0. Fedora uses a specific fixed URL to
access sf sources, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
The source is actually a combo of ASL and boost + a link, packed together in
the way ASL needs to be built. I've put a short-form of this info in the
comment. While this could be done it the %prep stage, I have concluded that it
becomes just a to messy (yes, I have tried :) )
Unless you are packaging direct from version control, and if so, should state
why, and the Release: would need work to fit with one of Fedora's pre/post
release naming schemes, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
What's wrong with Release: 3%{?dist} ?
2. Where possible, provide comment info on Source1,2. eg: exact URL retrieved
from (in that case, why not use the url directly ?), or where it came from ?
Not much to say, I wrote it :)
3. In your changelog, please use a blank line to separate each dated entry.
Fixed
4. Don't use large amount of white space between changelog date, email, and
version parts.
Fixed
5. Changelog version: don't include {?dist} ie: .fc15, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs must item
Fixed
6. Don't have you editor write config items to the spec file. (expandtab etc).
Fixed
7. Static libs: see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Is this applicable?! I'm not packaging a static library, I'm building a static
library which is converted to a dynamic in the following steps. Or am I missing
something?
This looked promising regarding bjam and shared libraries:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1768943/building-boost-on-linux-library-names
Which of the issues in this link do you think are not solved in this packaging.
I don't really follow you...
Might be worth looking to see if another rpm based distro solved this already,
eg Mandriva, Suse etc., or hints from debian based distro.
Once again, solved what?!
8. tools/bjam: is this tool already in fedora ? If so, then BuildRequire it
instead.
Yes, it's there, but not compatible, I have actually tried. Since this is not
installed, just used in the build process I don't see the problem here either.
[cut]
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980
Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-02-19 05:00:07 EST
---
$ rpmlint zanshin zanshin-debuginfo
zanshin.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Todo - Tod, Toto, Todd
zanshin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zanshin
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Sources verified ok:
$ md5sum *.bz2
e8c920f07374cb08200f990ef592938c zanshin-0.2.1.tar.bz2
17aba8cc59971622183cce67a74597b9 zanshin-lang.tar.bz2
Naming: ok
1. SHOULD. You have several dependencies listed explicitly that are already
pulled in implicitly by other stuff, you can drop
# kdelibs-devel already Requires: cmake
BuildRequires: cmake
# kdelibs/kde-runtime already Requires oxygen-icon-theme
Requires: oxygen-icon-theme
2. SHOULD add a versioned runtime dep:
Requires: kdebase-runtime%{?_kde4_version: = %{_kde4_version}}
3. SHOULD. macros/scriptlets mostly ok, but I'd recommend replacing all
%{_datadir}/icons
(use in scriptlets)
with
%{_kde4_iconsdir}
4. SHOULD remove
BuildRequires: intltool
as it's not needed or used as far as I can tell.
5. MUST, looks like licensing is:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted is
License: GPLv2
this is the convention (including the comment) we've been told by spot to use
when sources include the phrase (as-is here):
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
the License or (at your option) version 3 or any later version
accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor approved
by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy
defined in Section 14 of version 3 of the license.
note that there are also indeed several sources that are LGPLv2+, but they are
combined and linked with the above, so the aggregate license really is GPLv2
6. SHOULD use
%find_lang %{name} --with-kde
which will pick up any khelpcenter documentation handbook automatically if/when
it's ever included.
The rest looks fairly straight-forward and simple.
APPROVED.
I'll leave it to you to at least adjust the licensing MUST prior to doing any
official builds. The should items are all optional, but recommended. :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794990] Review Request: get-flash-videos - CLI tool to download flash video from websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794990 --- Comment #4 from David Timms dti...@iinet.net.au 2012-02-19 05:03:28 EST --- We usually name the spec according to the package name, not: ie get-flash-videos rather than perl-Crypt-Blowfish_PP.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 794990] Review Request: get-flash-videos - CLI tool to download flash video from websites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794990 --- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 05:37:16 EST --- Woa... A certain class of errors are simply embarrasing. Sorry for missing twice. New links: spec: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/get-flash-videos.spec srpm: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/get-flash-videos-1.24-2.20120205git8abc6c6.fc15.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 722204] Review Request: calligra - An integrated office suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722204 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722204] Review Request: calligra - An integrated office suite
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722204 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 05:42:26 EST --- calligra-2.3.87-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/calligra-2.3.87-4.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 795098] New: Review Request: startactive - An alternative Plasma session start script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: startactive - An alternative Plasma session start script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795098 Summary: Review Request: startactive - An alternative Plasma session start script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jrez...@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://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/startactive/startactive.spec SRPM URL: http://rezza.hofyland.cz/fedora/packages/startactive/startactive-0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: An alternative Plasma session start script, with limited scope to fit Plasma Active session needs. Startactive is part of Plasma Active project. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3802636 rpmlint ../SRPMS/startactive-0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/startactive-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm startactive.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary startactive startactive.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary startactive.bin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795099] New: Review Request: share-like-connect - Share, like and connect concept for Plasma Active
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: share-like-connect - Share, like and connect concept for Plasma Active https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795099 Summary: Review Request: share-like-connect - Share, like and connect concept for Plasma Active Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rnova...@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://rnovacek.fedorapeople.org/share-like-connect.spec SRPM URL: http://rnovacek.fedorapeople.org/share-like-connect-0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Share, like and connect concept for Plasma Active. Share-like-connect is part of Plasma Active project. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3802642 RPMLint result: share-like-connect.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libactivecontentservice.so libactivecontentservice.so share-like-connect.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libsharelikeconnect.so libsharelikeconnect.so share-like-connect-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 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 795098] Review Request: startactive - An alternative Plasma session start script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795098 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) Alias||startactive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795099] Review Request: share-like-connect - Share, like and connect concept for Plasma Active
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795099 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) Alias||share-like-connect -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772994] Review Request: globus-simple-ca - Globus Toolkit - Simple CA Utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772994
Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2012-02-19 06:09:07
EST ---
$ cat globus-simple-ca-review.txt
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
ASL2.0
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
.el5 is intended.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
.e5 running.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files -f package.filelist section. This
is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint globus-simple-ca-3.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint globus-simple-ca-3.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/steve/reviews/772994/globus_simple_ca-3.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 30af2a6c5301be4882ef93edf62b641a
MD5SUM upstream package : 30af2a6c5301be4882ef93edf62b641a
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
None.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
External plugins:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784359] Review Request: qpid-guitools - GUI utilities for Red Hat MRG qpid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784359
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #9 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2012-02-19 06:15:53 EST
---
Cmake doesn't need a version restriction. Even if you're going for EL 5, you're
having 2.6. Talking about EL 5: As Haïkel already said, if you don't go for EL
5, you don't need the clean section and the rm in the install section. But if
you're going for EL 5, you need to add a buildroot definition, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ
In general, defattr is not necessary anymore, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
You don't need any of the Requires. RPM is smart enough to figure them out,
see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
Please use the name macro in Source, your cp and in your cmake invocation. The
name macro is usually %{name}, not ${name}. Please preserve the timestamp for
your copied file (cp -p, for instance), see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
You need a desktop file for graphical applications, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
Also add license.txt with %doc.
The bindir macro is usually %{_bindir}.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790215] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Match-Regexp - Efficiently match IP addresses against ranges
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790215 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2012-02-19 06:12:54 EST --- Hi Massiomo, The fedora review tool only does some of the job. In particular it leaves many of the [ ]s blank and these must be checked. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795099] Review Request: share-like-connect - Share, like and connect concept for Plasma Active
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795099 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jrez...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790215] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Match-Regexp - Efficiently match IP addresses against ranges
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790215 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|steve.tray...@cern.ch Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2012-02-19 06:20:02 EST --- Hi, A very standard perl package that meets the guidelines. Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784603] Review Request: python-messaging - abstraction of a message
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784603
--- Comment #10 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2012-02-19 06:48:33
EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
ASL 2.0
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
EPEL5 targeted.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
EPEL5 so yes.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-messaging-0.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python-messaging-0.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python3-messaging-0.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/steve/reviews/784603/messaging-0.5.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 0b41ba68ef9951c862c73bdcc0917694
MD5SUM upstream package : 0b41ba68ef9951c862c73bdcc0917694
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
External plugins:
My Comments:
(1)
I don't quite understand the logic here:
%if ! (0%{?with_python3})
BuildRequires: python-simplejson
Requires: python-simplejson
%endif # if ! with_python3
This says that on platforms where python3 is not availble then install
install python-simplejson. But e.g rhel6 and fedora15 both have python 2.6
but only fedora15 has python3.
I would probably use a dist tag for this since it's the default python
version per
[Bug 784613] Review Request: python-auth-credential - abstraction of a credential
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784613 --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2012-02-19 07:02:11 EST --- Massimo, When changing the package as per Thomas's comments can you generate an new rpm and spec file increasing the release number of the package, see: .. there's a link that explains this I can't find at the moment... Steve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #14 from David Timms dti...@iinet.net.au 2012-02-19 07:39:36 EST
---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
1. The source download pointed to by the web page is a sf download. You
would
usually use a full URL for the Source0. Fedora uses a specific fixed URL to
access sf sources, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
The source is actually a combo of ASL and boost + a link, packed together in
the way ASL needs to be built. I've put a short-form of this info in the
comment. While this could be done it the %prep stage, I have concluded that it
becomes just a to messy (yes, I have tried :) )
Usually we package either a major version, or some post or pre release version
from some sort of code repository. I can't tell which this is.
Unless you are packaging direct from version control, and if so, should
state
why, and the Release: would need work to fit with one of Fedora's pre/post
release naming schemes, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
What's wrong with Release: 3%{?dist} ?
If you are using the upstream zip/archive then it's fine, and just include the
sf.net download using the method in the guidelines.
If this is a source checkout from some code repository, the guidelines show how
to specify that type of checkout (eg date, cvs/svn/git version/checksum). This
comes from rpm being a build from source system, where anyone should be able
build the identical binary based on the information in the spec. Hence we would
need to know the upstream checkout version to start with... There are possibly
some exceptions to this.
7. Static libs: see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Is this applicable?! I'm not packaging a static library, I'm building a static
library which is converted to a dynamic in the following steps. Or am I
missing something?
You might have to query someone ith more knowledge in this area, but it seems
that you are bundling a different version of boost, and then linking to that,
rather than to the distribution's boost version ?
Once again, solved what?!
Fedora packages avoid bundling libraries that are already in the distro, and so
you would need to get specific permission/allowance to bundle it. I might be
totally off base - perhaps another opinion would be good.
8. tools/bjam: is this tool already in fedora ? If so, then BuildRequire it
instead.
Yes, it's there, but not compatible, I have actually tried. Since this is not
installed, just used in the build process I don't see the problem here either.
The build process would also normally be required to be built either from
packages already in Fedora, or from source, although a few packages have
explicit exceptions (eg java from memory).
Overall, I probably can't provide much more guidance, someone with more
experience in these areas would be helpful.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694994] Review Request: yoshimi - Rewrite of ZynAddSubFx aiming for better JACK support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694994 --- Comment #22 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 08:05:29 EST --- Adam, I can take over this one if you would like? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #15 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 08:12:38
EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
[cut]
Usually we package either a major version, or some post or pre release version
from some sort of code repository. I can't tell which this is.
Now, from a review standpoint, what's the problem? Besides that this is
unusual? The build procedure has certain requirements, and I have solved it
this way. If this is wrong, please explain why.
Unless you are packaging direct from version control, and if so, should
state
why, and the Release: would need work to fit with one of Fedora's pre/post
release naming schemes, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
What's wrong with Release: 3%{?dist} ?
If you are using the upstream zip/archive then it's fine, and just include the
sf.net download using the method in the guidelines.
If this is a source checkout from some code repository, the guidelines show
how
to specify that type of checkout (eg date, cvs/svn/git version/checksum). This
comes from rpm being a build from source system, where anyone should be able
build the identical binary based on the information in the spec. Hence we
would
need to know the upstream checkout version to start with... There are possibly
some exceptions to this.
Have you actually packed up and looked into the source? It might help. Anyway,
maybe we should wait until some of the grown-ups could advice on the possible
problems here.
7. Static libs: see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Is this applicable?! I'm not packaging a static library, I'm building a
static
library which is converted to a dynamic in the following steps. Or am I
missing something?
You might have to query someone ith more knowledge in this area, but it seems
that you are bundling a different version of boost, and then linking to that,
rather than to the distribution's boost version ?
I'm not bundling boost. What I do is to build a static library against a
private boost copy in build time. As a last step I relink this against system
boost libraries. The private copy of boost is not installed. So, I don't really
don't know what to ask about.
That I'm not bundling is easily confirmed looking at %files.
Once again, solved what?!
Fedora packages avoid bundling libraries that are already in the distro, and
so
you would need to get specific permission/allowance to bundle it. I might be
totally off base - perhaps another opinion would be good.
Basically, I think you are if you think I'm bundling boost. I'm not.
The build process would also normally be required to be built either from
packages already in Fedora, or from source, although a few packages have
explicit exceptions (eg java from memory).
tools/bjam is built from sources in the first bootstrap step of the build. It's
not part of the source.
Overall, I probably can't provide much more guidance, someone with more
experience in these areas would be helpful.
Thanks for your help!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #16 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 08:28:41 EST --- Addendum, the source discussion: what the guidelines basically boils down to is that if that if the source url can't be used to obtain the source (as is the case here) the comment should describe how to get it. And that's what current comment does. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753262] Review Request: qxmpp-dev - Qt XMPP 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=753262 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 08:50:10 EST --- qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.2-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753262] Review Request: qxmpp-dev - Qt XMPP 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=753262 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 09:00:55 EST --- qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.2-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qxmpp-dev-0.3.45.2-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #11 from Minh Ngo nlmin...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 09:12:47 EST --- 0.5.0 SPEC: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/leechcraft-fedora/efdbcc5891646c13aac1b5069842c1fad6be7ab8/leechcraft.spec SRPM: https://github.com/Ignotus/leechcraft-fedora/blob/master/leechcraft-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm?raw=true BUILD: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3802820 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785432] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Translation - Horde translation 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=785432 --- Comment #13 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 09:39:03 EST --- Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785438] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Url - Horde Url class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785438 Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 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 785432] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Translation - Horde translation 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=785432 Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 09:40:04 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-Horde-Translation Short Description: Translation wrappers for Horde Owners: nb Branches: f16 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785438] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Url - Horde Url class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785438 --- Comment #4 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 09:40:47 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-Horde-Url Short Description: This class represents a single URL and provides methods for manipulating URLs Owners: nb 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 785432] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Translation - Horde translation 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=785432 --- Comment #15 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 09:40:22 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-Horde-Translation Short Description: Translation wrappers for Horde Owners: nb 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 785439] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Util - Horde Utility Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785439 Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 09:41:31 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-Horde-Util Short Description: These classes provide functionality useful for all kind of applications in Horde Owners: nb 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 785441] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Nls - Native Language Support (NLS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785441 Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Nick Bebout n...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 09:42:09 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-Horde-Nls Short Description: Common methods for handling language data, timezones, and hostname-country lookups Owners: nb 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 783716] Review Request:gmail-notify-ext - Gmail checker Gnome Online Accounts based
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783716 Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=734275 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782957] Review Request: musca - A simple dynamic window manager fox X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782957 Damien Durand splinu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734275] Review Request: aqemu - A QT graphical interface to QEMU and KVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734275
Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com |
|/show_bug.cgi?id=772608,|
|https://bugzilla.redhat.com |
|/show_bug.cgi?id=783716,|
|https://bugzilla.redhat.com |
|/show_bug.cgi?id=786668 |
--- Comment #17 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2012-02-19
09:46:38 EST ---
Here's the formal review of your package. There are a couple of things that
need to be fixed:
- The package currently doesn't build in mock (F16) because of
* missing BR: gnutls-devel
* clash of error macros
I suggest to manually expand the macro in file
Embedded_Display/vncview.cpp and drop its definition from the same file.
This should be reported upstream.
- The license of aqemu is GPLv2+ according to the source file headers.
= update the License field accordingly
- Add a short comment above Patch0 telling what the patch does. Have you sent
the patch upstream?
- File README contains installation instructions only.
= it should be removed from the package
- Please add the section suffix to the manpage filename in %files:
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}* = %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
- Add blank lines between the %changelog entries to improve legibility.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
aqemu.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://aqemu.sourceforge.net HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
aqemu.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://aqemu.sourceforge.net HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
aqemu.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/aqemu-0.8.2/COPYING
aqemu-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://aqemu.sourceforge.net HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
- the invalid URL messages are false positive
- incorrect FSF address has been reported upstream
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- GPLv2+ according to boilerplates
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- update the License field accordingly
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum aqemu-0.8.2.tar.bz2*
dcec083f566e0a22df7bfe8e7ca4c593 aqemu-0.8.2.tar.bz2
dcec083f566e0a22df7bfe8e7ca4c593 aqemu-0.8.2.tar.bz2.upstream
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must
[Bug 694994] Review Request: yoshimi - Rewrite of ZynAddSubFx aiming for better JACK support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694994 --- Comment #23 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 2012-02-19 11:54:10 EST --- Brendan, Apologies for the delay. There's a new version at: http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/yoshimi/yoshimi.spec http://verdurin.fedorapeople.org/reviews/yoshimi/yoshimi-0.060.12-2.fc16.src.rpm Having a bit of trouble using the new desktop file. I tried replacing the placeholders for Yoshimi version and the prefix in the spec, but it's clearly not working properly because the desktop-file-install invocation is failing, indicating that it's checking the original version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794542] Review Request: dpsearch - DataparkSearch Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794542 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com 2012-02-19 12:09:37 EST --- You might use 'rm -f' on the la/a files in case they are permissions that wouldn't let them be removed normally, otherwise, I see no other blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. I'll sponsor you. If you have any questions, let me know. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 694994] Review Request: yoshimi - Rewrite of ZynAddSubFx aiming for better JACK support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694994 --- Comment #24 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 12:13:39 EST --- Aplogies, upstream has not packaged the .desktop file correctly (nothing in CmakeLists.txt for the desktop file - looks like the .desktop file was committed as a guide by someone who did not know how to integrate it into the build system) Ship your original .desktop file, but use their icon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 12:22:04 EST --- Thanks for the careful review. I'll fix the issues you pointed out before I build the package. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: zanshin Short Description: Todo/action management software Owners: cwickert rdieter jreznik kkofler 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 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org Component|Package Review |0x --- Comment #19 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 13:29:18 EST --- @Christopher Wickert, Cinnamon is a fork of GNOME Shell. We can't use that guideline to prohibit forks and it doesn't apply once there is a different namespace. In other words, I don't see any problems. rpmlint has this error on the binary rpm cinnamon.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2(x86-64) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794542] Review Request: dpsearch - DataparkSearch Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794542 Ricky Elrod codebl...@elrod.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Ricky Elrod codebl...@elrod.me 2012-02-19 13:37:42 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dpsearch Short Description: DataparkSearch Engine Owners: codeblock Branches: 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 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 #16 from Jorge A Gallegos k...@blegh.net 2012-02-19 13:50:03 EST --- Ok put a new .src.rpm and .spec addressing the issues in the feedback, I also went ahead and updated to the latest stable version: SRPM: http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/uwsgi/uwsgi-1.0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://kad.fedorapeople.org/packages/uwsgi/uwsgi.spec (or https://gist.github.com/629491ed695cc4004831 if you are interested in the history) Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3803298 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785421] Review Request: python26-msgpack - A Python MessagePack (de)serializer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785421 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python26-msgpack-0.1.12-2.e ||l5 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-19 14:00:36 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 14:00:36 EST --- python26-msgpack-0.1.12-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785785 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|789360 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789360] Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789360 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|785785 | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 14:47:25 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rfcdiff Short Description: Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference Owners: hobbes1069 Branches: 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 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 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-02-19 14:48:01 EST --- PACKAGE 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 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 #17 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-02-19 14:47:17 EST --- Official review: [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. [root@beast SRPMS]# rpmlint uwsgi-1.0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm uwsgi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interprocess - inter process, inter-process, intercessors uwsgi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preforking - preforming, preferring uwsgi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US evented - evened, vented, e vented uwsgi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uGreen - u Green, Green, green uwsgi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml - XML, ml, x ml uwsgi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini - uni, in, ii uwsgi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml - yam, yams, yawl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. [PASS] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-ruby-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-ruby.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for Ruby support uwsgi-plugin-ruby.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-rack-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-rack.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Ruby rack plugin uwsgi-plugin-rack.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-python3-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-python3.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for Python 3.2 support uwsgi-plugin-python3.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-python-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-python.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for Python support uwsgi-plugin-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-psgi-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-psgi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for PSGI support uwsgi-plugin-psgi.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-nagios-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-nagios.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for Nagios support uwsgi-plugin-nagios.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-lua-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-lua.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for LUA support uwsgi-plugin-lua.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-greenlet-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-greenlet.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for Python Greenlet support uwsgi-plugin-greenlet.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-fastrouter-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-fastrouter.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for FastRouter support uwsgi-plugin-fastrouter.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-common-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-common.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Common plugins for uWSGI uwsgi-plugin-common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uGreen - u Green, Green, green uwsgi-plugin-common.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-plugin-admin-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-plugin-admin.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Plugin for Admin support uwsgi-plugin-admin.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-devel-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C uWSGI - Development header files and libraries uwsgi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [root@beast x86_64]# rpmlint uwsgi-1.0.4-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm uwsgi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interprocess - inter process, inter-process, intercessors uwsgi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preforking - preforming, preferring uwsgi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US evented - evened, vented, e vented uwsgi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uGreen - u Green, Green, green uwsgi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -
[Bug 772608] Review Request: ovirt-guest-agent - oVirt Guest Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772608 --- Comment #15 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-02-19 15:04:10 EST --- Gal, First please respond to questions in comment #14. Second, I'd like you to act as a reviewer for another package on your way to making into the packagers group. Please follow through with the entire process of getting the package into shape. The bugzilla is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786860 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786860] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786860 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com 2012-02-19 15:03:44 EST --- Rudy, On your path to joining the packager group, please review the following bugzilla: As you can see there are several comments in the review. Please do a new review of the current package and work with the packager to get all of the review guidelines met. The bugzilla is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772608 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786860] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786860 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786860] Review Request: opa - Opa, AGPL language for web 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786860 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@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 782957] Review Request: musca - A simple dynamic window manager fox X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782957 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:34:48 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 785439] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Util - Horde Utility Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785439 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:40:54 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 785432] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Translation - Horde translation 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=785432 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:37:41 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 785436] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Exception - Horde Exception Handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785436 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:38:03 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 785438] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Url - Horde Url class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785438 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:38:27 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 785441] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Nls - Native Language Support (NLS)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785441 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:42:25 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 789360] Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789360 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:43:48 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 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785785 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:42:55 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 789251] Review Request: jmeters - Multichannel audio level meter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789251 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:43:22 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794542] Review Request: dpsearch - DataparkSearch Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794542 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:47:42 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 789660] Review Request : xcftools - Command-line tools for extracting information from XCF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789660 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:46:30 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Unretired, created f17. Take ownership. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:48:25 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 790551] Review Request: 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 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:47:02 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785785 --- Comment #22 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:55:22 EST --- 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 789360] Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789360 --- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 15:55:12 EST --- 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 782957] Review Request: musca - A simple dynamic window manager fox X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782957 Damien Durand splinu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-19 16:31:32 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787454] Review Request: drupal7-theme-ninesixty - 960 Grid System (960.gs) theme for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787454 Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 16:38:33 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal7-theme-ninesixty Short Description: 960 Grid System (960.gs) theme for Drupal 7 Owners: asrob pfrields Branches: f15 f16 f17 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787459] Review Request: drupal7-theme-adaptivetheme - Adaptivetheme is a powerful theme framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787459 --- Comment #2 from Peter Borsa peter.bo...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 16:39:32 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal7-theme-adaptivetheme Short Description: Adaptivetheme is a powerful theme framework Owners: asrob pfrields Branches: f15 f16 f17 el5 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 16:55:05 EST --- zanshin-0.2.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanshin-0.2.1-1.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 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 17:04:36 EST --- zanshin-0.2.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanshin-0.2.1-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 17:15:17 EST --- zanshin-0.2.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanshin-0.2.1-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794542] Review Request: dpsearch - DataparkSearch Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794542 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 17:22:17 EST --- dpsearch-4.54-0.1.20120215snap.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpsearch-4.54-0.1.20120215snap.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 794542] Review Request: dpsearch - DataparkSearch Engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794542 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 516287] Review Request: perl-Config-Model-Itself - Model editor for Config::Model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516287
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr
2012-02-19 17:39:56 EST ---
I did the review of your package shortly after you updated it and never
submitted it into Bugzilla. Sorry, David.
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[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 including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3803638
[x] Rpmlint output:
perl-Config-Model-Itself.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/perl-Config-Model-Itself-1.222/LICENSE
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 error.
Please file a bug upstream requesting the address be updated (assuming this
hasn't been done since then).
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
Note that the Buildroot specified in the file is only used on EPEL5.
If you don't care about this target, feel free to drop it.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: 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] 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.
24d1dc5ee6c23228f7b7235150bc818d Config-Model-Itself-1.222.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] 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.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[!] Latest version is packaged.
1.228 is out. David, please update asap.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3803638
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[!] %check is present and the tests pass
Tests witch require a GUI. :-(
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 787858] Review Request: bashmount - a menu-driven bash script for mounting removable media
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787858 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||bashmount-1.6.2-3.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-19 18:18:33 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 18:18:33 EST --- bashmount-1.6.2-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #26 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 19:40:22 EST --- both license issue and permission are fixed. http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gtkd.spec http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gtkd-1.5.1-21.20120219git2cfd194.fc16.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3803714 $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/ldc.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/gtkd* gtkd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) binding - building gtkd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) and - ans, an, ad gtkd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) wrapper - rapper, frapper, w rapper gtkd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) of - off, if, or gtkd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr multi - mufti, multiple gtkd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) developing - développante gtkd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/gtkd-1.5.1-21.20120219git2cfd194.fc16.src.rpm gtkd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) binding - building gtkd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) and - ans, an, ad gtkd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) wrapper - rapper, frapper, w rapper gtkd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) of - off, if, or gtkd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr multi - mufti, multiple 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-19 20:24:10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-19 20:25:39 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest12 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790258 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-19 20:27:03 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-19 20:26:14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 20:49:16 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: aspectjweaver New Branches: f17 I used an incorrect field name in the initial request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] Review Request: 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 20:50:26 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: hessian New Branches: f17 I used an incorrect field name in the initial request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest12 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790258 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 20:48:42 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: hamcrest12 New Branches: f17 I used an incorrect field name in the initial request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 20:51:17 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: aopalliance New Branches: f17 I used an incorrect field name in the initial request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 20:59:01 EST --- Please list owners. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 20:57:46 EST --- Please list owners. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest12 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790258 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 20:56:57 EST --- No owners specified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787454] Review Request: drupal7-theme-ninesixty - 960 Grid System (960.gs) theme for Drupal 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787454 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 21:03:31 EST --- Already exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: 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 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 21:01:45 EST --- Please list owners. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 21:10:47 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: aopalliance New Branches: f17 Owners: arg I used an incorrect field name in the initial request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 21:12:35 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: aspectjweaver New Branches: f17 Owners:arg -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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] Review Request: 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 agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-19 21:13:56 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: hessian New Branches: f17 Owners:arg -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794980] Review Request: zanshin - Todo/action management software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794980 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-19 21:15:21 EST --- zanshin-0.2.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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
