[Bug 798506] Review Request: ghc-cabal-file-th - Template Haskell expressions for reading cabal 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=798506
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 2012-03-04
04:22:33 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-cabal-file-th-0.2.2-1.fc15.src.rpm
ghc-cabal-file-th-0.2.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-cabal-file-th-devel-0.2.2-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-cabal-file-th.spec
ghc-cabal-file-th.src: W: strange-permission cabal-file-th-0.2.2.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - NOT OK. Please add your name and email id to the
changelog.
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
LICENSE is BSD 3 clause
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum cabal-file-th-0.2.2.tar.gz
96e79ac5ed4b581622b1b7a963d722dd cabal-file-th-0.2.2.tar.gz
md5sum ghc-cabal-file-th-0.2.2-1.fc18.src/cabal-file-th-0.2.2.tar.gz
96e79ac5ed4b581622b1b7a963d722dd
ghc-cabal-file-th-0.2.2-1.fc18.src/cabal-file-th-0.2.2.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-cabal-file-th
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(cabal-file-th-0.2.2) = d282e5874908cd4cd7e59e74a3c2fb25 is needed by
(installed) ghc-cabal-file-th-devel-0.2.2-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-cabal-file-th = 0.2.2-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-cabal-file-th-devel-0.2.2-1.fc15.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]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.
LICENSE file is included
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Installs fine. Loaded
Distribution.PackageDescription.TH into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is
[Bug 798616] Review Request: jboss-ejb3-ext-api - JBoss EJB 3 Extension API, part of JBoss packaging tasks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798616 --- Comment #4 from Sebastien Pasche sebastien.pas...@heig-vd.ch 2012-03-04 05:04:00 EST --- I'm working on it ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798616] Review Request: jboss-ejb3-ext-api - JBoss EJB 3 Extension API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798616 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |jboss-ejb3-ext-api - JBoss |jboss-ejb3-ext-api - JBoss |EJB 3 Extension API, part |EJB 3 Extension API |of JBoss packaging tasks| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799694] New: Review Request: dwb - Dynamic web browser based on WebKit and GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: dwb - Dynamic web browser based on WebKit and GTK+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799694 Summary: Review Request: dwb - Dynamic web browser based on WebKit and GTK+ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sebastien.willm...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb.spec SRPM URL: http://wilqu.fr/rpms/dwb/dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: dwb is small webkit-based web-browser in the spirit of tiling window managers, that aims to be mostly keyboard-driven. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3850323 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799694] Review Request: dwb - Dynamic web browser based on WebKit and 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=799694 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org 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 693158] Review Request: python-viper - A minimalistic scientific plotter and run-time visualization module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693158 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch 2012-03-04 07:50:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) run--time -- I think that should be run-time. fixed What is dolfin? DOLFIN is the C++/Python interface of FEniCS. (defattr is not required.) removed * Sun Mar 04 2012 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch - 1.0.0-1 - Updated to latest upstream version Updates files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-viper.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-viper-1.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799694] Review Request: dwb - Dynamic web browser based on WebKit and 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=799694
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-04 07:50:17 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc18.src.rpm
dwb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webkit - web kit, web-kit,
website
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint dwb-2012.02.01-1.fc18.i686.rpm
dwb.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webkit - web kit, web-kit,
website
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint dwb-debuginfo-2012.02.01-1.fc18.i686.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/misc/799694/dwb-2012.02.01.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 9d1da367b745f4185aa35309747bb8c9
MD5SUM upstream package : 9d1da367b745f4185aa35309747bb8c9
[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 Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 799650] Review Request: python-django-tagging - A generic tagging application for Django projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799650 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org 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 693137] Review Request: python-ffc - A compiler for finite element variational forms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693137 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|693135 |799702 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743612] Review Request: lbdb - collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743612 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-04 09:16:15 EST --- Christophe, any news ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718395] Review Request: libmusicbrainz4-4.0.0 - Library for accessing MusicBrainz servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718395 Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nott...@redhat.com, ||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|libmusicbrainz3 |Package Review AssignedTo|rdie...@math.unl.edu|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799650] Review Request: python-django-tagging - A generic tagging application for Django projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799650 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 743612] Review Request: lbdb - collect email addresses from several sources and offer them in mutt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743612
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com 2012-03-04
09:42:29 EST ---
Updated the .spec at http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lbdb/lbdb.spec , new
srpm at http://teuf.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lbdb/lbdb-0.38-2.fc16.src.rpm
* Sun Mar 04 2012 Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com - 0.38-2
- add %%{?dist} in release
- remove use of BuildRoot:
- remove use of %%defattr
- remove usage instruction from %%description
- comment patches
I haven't commented about whether the patches have been sent upstream or not
because I don't know, I carried them from the openSUSE package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730815] Review Request: pamtester - Utility to test Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAM)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730815
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||needinfo+
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-04 09:49:04 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: 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 Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint pamtester-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint pamtester-0.1.2-1.fc18.i686.rpm
pamtester.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d
pamtester.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US facto - fact, factor,
facts
pamtester.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centralised -
centralized, centralist, centralism
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint pamtester-0.1.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
pamtester.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d
pamtester.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US facto - fact, factor,
facts
pamtester.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centralised -
centralized, centralist, centralism
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/misc/730815/pamtester-0.1.2.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : f441a6617cbc640ea02f3e22058c0461
MD5SUM upstream package : f441a6617cbc640ea02f3e22058c0461
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[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 Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|needinfo?(martin.gieseking@ | |uos.de) | --- Comment #23 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de 2012-03-04 10:07:27 EST --- Steve, the package looks almost fine now. I forgot to mention that another BuildRequires is missing: hicolor-icon-theme provides the directories where the icons are installed. You probably already got an email about your sponsorship, so welcome to the packager group! You're now allowed to do formal reviews of other packager's submissions (except those blocked by FE-NEEDSPONSOR), and all other packagers can review your submissions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783064] Review Request: python-omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783064 Jaromír Talíř jaromir.ta...@seznam.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jaromir.ta...@seznam.cz Bug 783064 depends on bug 783061, which changed state. Bug 783061 Summary: Review Request: omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for C++ and Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783061 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798506] Review Request: ghc-cabal-file-th - Template Haskell expressions for reading cabal 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=798506 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2012-03-04 10:34:21 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-cabal-file-th Short Description: Template Haskell expressions for reading cabal files Owners: mathstuf Branches: f15 f16 f17 InitialCC: haskell-sig Will fix the changelog before uploading. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784802] Review Request: ghc-lifted-base - Lifted IO operations from the base 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=784802
Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||maths...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2012-03-04 10:57:07 EST ---
Taking.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
Uses ghc_arches
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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 is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate 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.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/boeckb/misc/code/review/784802/lifted-base-0.1.0.3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : a66af2f8440ca65997440343102f8a8c
MD5SUM upstream package : a66af2f8440ca65997440343102f8a8c
[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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[Bug 797740] Review Request: z80asm - Assembler for Z80 microprocessor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797740
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-04 11:59:56 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint z80asm-1.8-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint z80asm-debuginfo-1.8-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint z80asm-1.8-1.fc18.i686.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/misc/797740/z80asm-1.8.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 4beb798d6fe2f89e62de36b4b4f87fad
MD5SUM upstream package : 4beb798d6fe2f89e62de36b4b4f87fad
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX /
[Bug 608509] Review Request: python-subvertpy - Python bindings for Subversion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608509 --- Comment #12 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch 2012-03-04 12:32:17 EST --- * Sun Mar 04 2012 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch - 0.8.10-1 - Updated to new upstream release 0.8.10 Updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-subvertpy.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-subvertpy-0.8.10-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797370] Review Request: python-ssh - A Python SSH2 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=797370 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-04 13:11:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) - Added check section - Added rm -fr to prep section Thanks. - Attempted to add python3, but tests failed because UserDict.DictMixin isn't in python3 (imported and used in ssh/hostkeys.py) -- I might try to come up with a patch to convert this to collections.MutableMapping I just tried it quick and dirty and it turns out that internal python-ssh doesn't care much bytes vs strings so this will involve some deeper patches/rewrite. Python3 support is talked about here: https://github.com/bitprophet/ssh/issues/7 # 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770615 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbonz...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2012-03-04 13:41:27 EST --- *** Bug 693705 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730815] Review Request: pamtester - Utility to test Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAM)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730815 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, needinfo+ |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-04 14:08:21 EST --- Ok, so the package is good for me to be sent to the package collection. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785592] Review Request: python-setproctitle - Python module to customize a process title
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785592 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org 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 797740] Review Request: z80asm - Assembler for Z80 microprocessor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797740 Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com 2012-03-04 15:13:51 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: z80asm Short Description: Z80 Assembler Owners: brouhaha 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 785592] Review Request: python-setproctitle - Python module to customize a process title
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785592
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-04 15:40:42 EST ---
I will take the review.
First thing :
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
should be removed
2nd thing :
the tests ( make check ) are not run, and that should be :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 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 754583] Review Request: dnssec-trigger - Update/reconfigure DNSSEC resolving
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754583 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|RELEASE_PENDING -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797694] Review Request: Farstream - Libraries for videoconferencing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797694 --- Comment #13 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com 2012-03-04 17:16:16 EST --- Imported package into git, but will hold off on building until tp-farstream (bug #755727) is also approved, otherwise we'll run into problems with obsoletes/provides. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755727] Review Request: telepathy-farstream - Telepathy client library to handle Call channels
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755727 --- Comment #3 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com 2012-03-04 17:14:15 EST --- Spec URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/telepathy-farstream.spec SRPM URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/telepathy-farstream-0.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm i386 build results: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tp-farstream/ Description: telepathy-farstream is a Telepathy client library that uses Farsight2 to handle Call channels -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2012-03-04 17:17:00 EST --- Hi Brendan, David, I know this would make you feel like a tennis ball bouncing back and forth, and I know I once made an analogy with audacity, but (in case we are also making a qtractor-freeworld package) how easy is it to make the rpmfusion package parallelly installable? From what I can tell, what need a change are: - The binary name - The icon name - The name and contents of the .desktop file so that it uses the new binary and the icon - The .mo locale file names, and possibly we need to patch the source to use these new locale files. Is there anything else? I am not saying that we should do it this way, please don't take this as an obligation. It is merely a brain exercise at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 564537] Review Request: grc - simple python logfile colouriser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564537 --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch 2012-03-04 17:28:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) - Please have a lot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python I've read it thoroughly, and I'm not sure it's relevant. Although grc is written in Python, it is not (yet?) implemented as a Python module: it does not need to know where python_sitelib is, or do any byte-compilation. My interpretation is therefore that no changes are needed: I'd appreciate your advice if this is not so. Sorry, it seams that I messed up two review 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 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #28 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2012-03-04 20:08:28 EST --- Hm, what they call txml actually looks like Expat. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784784] Review Request: ghc-base-unicode-symbols - Unicode alternatives to common Haskell operators and functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784784 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788159] Review Request: ghc-conduit - Streaming data processing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788159 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-03-04 21:22:06 EST --- Thank you for the review. Ok yes I will update to 0.2.2 when importing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-conduit Short Description: Streaming data processing library Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 f15 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784802] Review Request: ghc-lifted-base - Lifted IO operations from the base 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=784802 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-03-04 21:26:33 EST --- Thanks for reviewing New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-lifted-base Short Description: Lifted IO operations from the base library Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 f15 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797370] Review Request: python-ssh - A Python SSH2 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=797370 Silas Sewell si...@sewell.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Silas Sewell si...@sewell.org 2012-03-04 22:08:41 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-ssh Short Description: Python SSH2 library Owners: silas 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 788159] Review Request: ghc-conduit - Streaming data processing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788159 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.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 784799] Review Request: ghc-monad-control - Lift control operations through monad transformers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784799 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-03-04 22:32:45 EST --- Thank you for the review New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-monad-control Short Description: Lift control operations through monad transformers Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 f15 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720813] Review Request: python-strainer - Tools to allow developers to cleanup web serialization objects (HTML, JSON, XHTML)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720813 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com 2012-03-04 23:26:29 EST --- Two things first before a formal review - * rpmlint failed on both the spec and the src rpm. * The upstream URL is incorrect, it is source/s/strainer not source/t/strainer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798891] Review Request: libtranslit - transliteration library with multiple backends
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798891 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-04 23:39:33 EST --- libtranslit-0.0.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libtranslit-0.0.2-1.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 798891] Review Request: libtranslit - transliteration library with multiple backends
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798891 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-04 23:39:24 EST --- libtranslit-0.0.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libtranslit-0.0.2-1.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 799810] New: Review Request: python-picloud - PiCloud client-side Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-picloud - PiCloud client-side Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799810 Summary: Review Request: python-picloud - PiCloud client-side Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: amitsaha...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://amitksaha.fedorapeople.org/contribs/picloud_packaging/python-picloud.spec SRPM URL: http://amitksaha.fedorapeople.org/contribs/picloud_packaging/python-picloud-2.4.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: PiCloud is a cloud-computing platform that integrates into the Python Programming Language. This is the package for PiCloud client-side library. This is my first package and I am in need of a sponsor. I have tried to ensure that the package conforms to the guidelines, but that may not be the case. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799810] Review Request: python-picloud - PiCloud client-side 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=799810 Amit Saha amitsaha...@gmail.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 783294] Review Request: picolisp - Lisp Interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783294 --- Comment #3 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com 2012-03-05 02:05:45 EST --- Thanks Lakshmi. Waiting for your patches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799810] Review Request: python-picloud - PiCloud client-side 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=799810
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2012-03-05 02:08:00 EST
---
Just a few comments:
- Harmonize on either using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
- Use the _mandir and _sysconfdir macro in the install section and preserve
timestamps for the files you install
- BR python-devel, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- Package fails to build for me (Rawhide, i386) -- probably for the reason
above
- Since EL 5 has Python 2.4, you're package probably won't work. In that case,
you should remove the rm in the install section and the buildroot definition --
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#EL5
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799810] Review Request: python-picloud - PiCloud client-side 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=799810
--- Comment #2 from Amit Saha amitsaha...@gmail.com 2012-03-05 02:29:10 EST
---
Thanks for your comments:
(In reply to comment #1)
Just a few comments:
- Harmonize on either using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
- Use the _mandir and _sysconfdir macro in the install section and preserve
timestamps for the files you install
- BR python-devel, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- Package fails to build for me (Rawhide, i386) -- probably for the reason
above
- Since EL 5 has Python 2.4, you're package probably won't work. In that case,
you should remove the rm in the install section and the buildroot definition
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#EL5
Can you please check the SPEC file now:
http://amitksaha.fedorapeople.org/contribs/picloud_packaging/python-picloud.spec
?
Cheers.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799650] Review Request: python-django-tagging - A generic tagging application for Django projects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799650 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-05 02:35:14 EST --- Thank you for the review! Since we need to clarify, in which branches django-tagging should be replaced, I'll delay the SCM request a little. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799558] Review Request: xfce4-soundmenu-plugin - MPRIS2 control plugin for the Xfce panel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799558 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-05 02:41:57 EST --- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
