[Bug 452427] Review Request: awesome - Extremely fast, small, dynamic and awesome floating and tiling window manager

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452427

--- Comment #131 from Jim Meyering  2012-03-26 01:45:27 
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #130)
> (In reply to comment #129)
> > Is there any plans to have 3.4.11 on fedora repo?
> 
> Plans - yes, timeframe - no.
> 
> Need to sort out how to have xcb-utils 3.8 and three libs that have been
> splitted off xcb-utils packaged for F16 so they don't conflict with official
> packages.

Hi Thomas, do you have anything that works with F17?
My desktop now runs F17, and I found that the -rawhide rpms did not work there.
Building from source rpms didn't work either, due to protected
multilib problems with cairo, so I ended up building from sources,
and the result works, but RPMs would be better...

Thanks,

Jim

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 802182] Review Request: ironjacamar - Java Connector Architecture 1.6 implementation

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802182

--- Comment #3 from Ricardo Arguello  2012-03-26 
00:22:07 EDT ---
Fixed!

Spec URL:
http://ricardo.fedorapeople.org/package_review/ironjacamar/2/ironjacamar.spec

SRPM URL:
http://ricardo.fedorapeople.org/package_review/ironjacamar/2/ironjacamar-1.0.9-1.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 802377] Review Request: perl-Env-Sanctify - Lexically scoped sanctification of %ENV

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802377

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-26 00:00:35 EDT ---
perl-Env-Sanctify-1.06-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable
repository.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806680] Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806680

--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 23:58:39 EDT 
---
*** Bug 806681 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 480724] Review Request: ndjbdns - New djbdns, usable djbdns.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15
 Resolution||ERRATA
Last Closed|2009-12-09 05:51:09 |2012-03-25 23:58:00

--- Comment #70 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 23:58:00 EDT ---
ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 785727] Review Request: ocaml-camlimages - OCaml image processing library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785727

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-2.fc |ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-2.fc
   |15  |16

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 23:59:17 EDT ---
ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-2.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 806681] Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806681

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
 Resolution||DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2012-03-25 23:58:39

--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 23:58:39 EDT 
---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 806680 ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 785727] Review Request: ocaml-camlimages - OCaml image processing library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785727

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-2.fc |ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-2.fc
   |17  |15

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 23:55:44 EDT ---
ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable
repository.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 802377] Review Request: perl-Env-Sanctify - Lexically scoped sanctification of %ENV

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802377

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 23:56:18 EDT ---
perl-Env-Sanctify-1.06-1.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 799284] Review Request: perl-Pod-Plainer - Perl extension for converting Pod to old-style Pod

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799284

--- Comment #4 from xn...@redhat.com 2012-03-25 22:29:16 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 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.
> [-]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
>  least one supported primary architecture.
> [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>  that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
>  Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
> [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
> [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>  Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
> [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>  Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
> [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
> [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
> [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>  beginning of %install.
>  Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
> [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
> [-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
>  license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
>  license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
> [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).
> [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [?]: 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.
> [?]: MUST Package installs properly.
> [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [?]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
> [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
>  provided in the spec URL.
> /home/contyk/src/review/799284/Pod-Plainer-1.03.tar.gz :
>   MD5SUM this package : 15d42071d6bd861cb72daa8cc3111cd3
>   MD5SUM upstream package : 15d42071d6bd861cb72daa8cc3111cd3
> [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [!]: 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.
> [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
>  separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
>  include it.
> [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
> [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
>  /usr/sbin.
> [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
>  --requires).
> [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
> [x]: SHOULD 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.
> [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>  architectures.
> [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
> [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.
> [-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
> 
> Issues:
> FIX: The package doesn't build due to missing build dependencies; add
> perl(Test::More) and, optionally, perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.00 to your
> BRs.
> FIX: The URL is wrong; correct it to http://search.cpan.org

[Bug 806675] Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806675

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
 Resolution||DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2012-03-25 22:03:05

--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 22:03:05 EDT 
---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 806670 ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806679] Review Request: logback - A Java logging library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806679

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
 Resolution||DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2012-03-25 22:04:03

--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 22:04:03 EDT 
---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 806678 ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806674] Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806674

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
 Resolution||DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2012-03-25 22:02:59

--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 22:02:59 EDT 
---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 806670 ***

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806670] Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806670

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 22:02:31 EDT 
---
Don't file multiple 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 806670] Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806670

--- Comment #2 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 22:02:59 EDT 
---
*** Bug 806674 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 806678] Review Request: logback - A Java logging library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806678

--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 22:04:03 EDT 
---
*** Bug 806679 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 806670] Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806670

--- Comment #3 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 22:03:05 EDT 
---
*** Bug 806675 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 806681] New: Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806681

   Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle
OpenPGP API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pg.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pg-1.46-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: The Bouncy Castle Java API for handling the OpenPGP protocol. This
jar contains the OpenPGP API for JDK 1.6. The APIs can be used in 
conjunction with a JCE/JCA provider such as the one provided with the
Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806680] New: Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP API

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle OpenPGP API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806680

   Summary: Review Request: bouncycastle-pg - Bouncy Castle
OpenPGP API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pg.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pg-1.46-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: The Bouncy Castle Java API for handling the OpenPGP protocol. This
jar contains the OpenPGP API for JDK 1.6. The APIs can be used in 
conjunction with a JCE/JCA provider such as the one provided with the
Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806679] New: Review Request: logback - A Java logging library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: logback - A Java logging library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806679

   Summary: Review Request: logback - A Java logging library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/logback.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/logback-1.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Logback is intended as a successor to the popular log4j project.
At present
time, logback is divided into three modules, logback-core, logback-classic
and logback-access.

The logback-core module lays the groundwork for the other two modules. The
logback-classic module can be assimilated to a significantly improved
version of log4j. Moreover, logback-classic natively implements the SLF4J
API so that you can readily switch back and forth between logback and other
logging frameworks such as log4j or java.util.logging (JUL).

The logback-access module integrates with Servlet containers, such as
Tomcat and Jetty, to provide HTTP-access log functionality. Note that you
could easily build your own module on top of logback-core.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806678] New: Review Request: logback - A Java logging library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: logback - A Java logging library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806678

   Summary: Review Request: logback - A Java logging library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/logback.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/logback-1.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Logback is intended as a successor to the popular log4j project.
At present
time, logback is divided into three modules, logback-core, logback-classic
and logback-access.

The logback-core module lays the groundwork for the other two modules. The
logback-classic module can be assimilated to a significantly improved
version of log4j. Moreover, logback-classic natively implements the SLF4J
API so that you can readily switch back and forth between logback and other
logging frameworks such as log4j or java.util.logging (JUL).

The logback-access module integrates with Servlet containers, such as
Tomcat and Jetty, to provide HTTP-access log functionality. Note that you
could easily build your own module on top of logback-core.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806677] Review Request: jboss-web - JBoss Web Server

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806677

Anthony Sasadeusz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mgold...@redhat.com
 Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806677] New: Review Request: jboss-web - JBoss Web Server

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: jboss-web - JBoss Web Server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806677

   Summary: Review Request: jboss-web - JBoss Web Server
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: sasad...@umbc.edu
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
  Story Points: ---
  Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
 Documentation: ---


Spec URL: 
SRPM URL:


Description: JBoss Web Server is an enterprise ready web server designed for
medium and large applications, based on Tomcat.

JBoss Web a component of the JBoss Application Server, there are no more
standalone version of JBoss Web you need the Application Server to get the
Servlet/JSP container.,

JBoss Web Server provides organizations with a single deployment platform for
Java Server Pages (JSP) and Java Servlet technologies, PHP, and CGI. It uses a
genuine high performance hybrid technology that incorporates the best of the
most recent OS technologies for processing high volume data, while keeping all
the reference Java specifications.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3931742

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 676879] Review Request: mpiexec - MPI job launcher that uses the PBS task interface directly

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676879

--- Comment #19 from Christos Triantafyllidis 
 2012-03-25 18:37:55 EDT ---
Hi Jussi,
   thanks for your comments.

   Well i'm not that interested on the fedora branches as i am in EPEL ones. I
totally understand your point but i can definitely say that there many (grid)
sites that are running torque thus there would be some use for them. And fedora
still ships this "obsolete" torque.

   Regarding whether this package is obsolete, well as long as torque and MPICH
are maintained, and used in production i wouldn't say that this is the case.

   Now regarding naming i really don't care, functionality matters on my side,
if you think that renaming it to "something"-mpiexec or mpiexec-"something"
will help, i'm with you. I just used mpiexec as this is the name that vendor
used. But for sure naming it "something"-mpiexec will not be the first guess
that someone will try if he/she wants to install this package as vendor uses
plain "mpiexec" (wrongly in my opinion too).

Anyway i see that there is no will to push this forward, although there is
no policy (that at least i'm aware of) against it, so feel free to close this
ticket.

Regards,
Christos

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 772406] Review Request: cpulimit - CPU Usage Limiter for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772406

--- Comment #8 from Christos Triantafyllidis 
 2012-03-25 18:40:48 EDT ---
Thanks Thomas!

I'm looking forward your comments.

Christos

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806675] New: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806675

   Summary: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System
Client in 100% Java
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcifs.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcifs-1.3.17-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: The jCIFS SMB client library enables any Java application to
remotely
access shared files and directories on SMB file servers(i.e. a Microsoft
Windows "share") in addition to domain, workgroup, and server
enumeration of NetBIOS over TCP/IP networks. It is an advanced
implementation of the CIFS protocol supporting Unicode, batching,
multiplexing of threaded callers, encrypted authentication,
transactions, the Remote Access Protocol (RAP), and much more. It is
licensed under LGPL which means commercial organizations can
legitimately use it with their proprietary code(you just can't sell or
give away a modified binary only version of the library itself without
reciprocation).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806674] New: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806674

   Summary: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System
Client in 100% Java
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcifs.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcifs-1.3.17-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: The jCIFS SMB client library enables any Java application to
remotely
access shared files and directories on SMB file servers(i.e. a Microsoft
Windows "share") in addition to domain, workgroup, and server
enumeration of NetBIOS over TCP/IP networks. It is an advanced
implementation of the CIFS protocol supporting Unicode, batching,
multiplexing of threaded callers, encrypted authentication,
transactions, the Remote Access Protocol (RAP), and much more. It is
licensed under LGPL which means commercial organizations can
legitimately use it with their proprietary code(you just can't sell or
give away a modified binary only version of the library itself without
reciprocation).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806673] New: Review Request: jna-posix - Java POSIX emulation layer

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: jna-posix - Java POSIX emulation layer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806673

   Summary: Review Request: jna-posix - Java POSIX emulation layer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/jna-posix.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jna-posix-1.0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: jna-posix is a lightweight cross-platform POSIX emulation
layer for Java, written in Java and leveraging the JNA
library (https://jna.dev.java.net/).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 752223] Review Request: racoon2 - an implementation of key management system for IPsec

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752223

--- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 18:26:10 EDT ---
racoon2-20100526a-17.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806670] New: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System Client in 100% Java

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806670

   Summary: Review Request: jcifs - Common Internet File System
Client in 100% Java
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcifs.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcifs-1.3.17-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: The jCIFS SMB client library enables any Java application to
remotely
access shared files and directories on SMB file servers(i.e. a Microsoft
Windows "share") in addition to domain, workgroup, and server
enumeration of NetBIOS over TCP/IP networks. It is an advanced
implementation of the CIFS protocol supporting Unicode, batching,
multiplexing of threaded callers, encrypted authentication,
transactions, the Remote Access Protocol (RAP), and much more. It is
licensed under LGPL which means commercial organizations can
legitimately use it with their proprietary code(you just can't sell or
give away a modified binary only version of the library itself without
reciprocation).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 713313] Review Request: msktutil - Program for interoperability with Active Directory

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713313

--- Comment #37 from Ken Dreyer  2012-03-25 18:08:37 EDT 
---
Hi Michael,

Thanks for taking the review. I do intend to package for EPEL 5.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806669] New: Review Request: janino - An embedded Java compiler

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: janino - An embedded Java compiler

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806669

   Summary: Review Request: janino - An embedded Java compiler
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it
 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://gil.fedorapeople.org/janino.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/janino-2.5.16-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Janino is a compiler that reads a JavaTM expression, block,
class body, source file or a set of source files, and
generates JavaTM bytecode that is loaded and executed directly.
Janino is not intended to be a development tool,
but an embedded compiler for run-time compilation purposes,
e.g. expression evaluators or "server pages" engines like JSP.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 803148] Review Request: python-pycallgraph - A module that creates call graphs for Python programs

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803148

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  2012-03-25 
17:29:23 EDT ---
python-pycallgraph-0.5.1-2.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

[Bug 801680] Review Request: picketbox - Security framework for Java Applications

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801680

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 17:30:04 EDT ---
picketbox-4.0.6-5.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

[Bug 806517] Review Request: pycscope - Generates a cscope index of Python source trees

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806517

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 17:28:31 EDT ---
pycscope-0.3-3.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

[Bug 783071] Review Request: diet - A computational servers toolkit

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783071

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 17:28:49 EDT ---
diet-2.8.0-4.cd326f85f75cgit.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

[Bug 806665] New: Review Request: mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and 
intelligent local echo

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806665

   Summary: Review Request: mosh - Mobile shell that supports
roaming and intelligent local echo
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: unspecified
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: acher...@mit.edu
 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://mit.edu/achernya/www/fedora/mosh.spec
SRPM URL: http://mit.edu/achernya/www/fedora/mosh-1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description:

Mosh is a remote terminal application that supports:
  - intermittent network connectivity,
  - roaming to different IP address without dropping the connection, and
  - intelligent local echo and line editing to reduce the effects
of "network lag" on high-latency connections.

Mosh has already been included in Debian.  I am working with the author (Keith
Winstein) so that it can also be included in Fedora.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 805013] Review Request: ecasound - Music application for multitrack audio editing

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805013

--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones  2012-03-25 
16:26:03 EDT ---
Hi Kalpa 

can you please review the above attachment? It shows how this should be
packaged (although according to Fedora guidelines of course).

regards,

Brendan

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 805013] Review Request: ecasound - Music application for multitrack audio editing

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805013

--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones  2012-03-25 
16:24:52 EDT ---
Created attachment 572576
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=572576
CCRMA spec file

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 804666] Review Request: libpfm - Library to encode performance events for use by perf tool

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804666

--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt  2012-03-25 16:18:32 
EDT ---
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries


* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag


* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean


> %{!?with_python: %global with_python 1}

You may want to look into using "%bcond_without python" instead.


> %defattr(644,root,root,755)
> %doc README

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions


> %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/lib*.so*

Ownership is root:root by default. If the mode is not 0755 for the installed
lib, I highly recommend fixing it upstream and temporarily during %install.
Usage of the eye-catching %attr should be limited to non-ordinary file
permissions as not to overuse 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 739263] Review Request: sugar-bounce - Fast paced 3D action game

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739263

--- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones  2012-03-25 
16:03:19 EDT ---
Hi Kalpa,

still a few issues here. 

- When I run the application I'm getting the following:

fedora16:~ $ python /usr/share/sugar/activities/Bounce.activity/bounce.pyc
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/share/sugar/activities/Bounce.activity/bounce.py", line 28, in

from pongc.pongc import *
ImportError: No module named pongc.pongc

pongc.py is missing from your package

- You also are using %buildroot and $RPM_BUILDROOT
- defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5.
Otherwise not needed
- remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in your %install section

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806654] New: Review Request: perl-IPC-Filter - Filter data through an external process

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: perl-IPC-Filter - Filter data through an external 
process
Alias: perl-IPC-Filter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806654

   Summary: Review Request: perl-IPC-Filter - Filter data through
an external process
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: Unspecified
   URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/IPC-Filter/
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
  Severity: unspecified
  Priority: unspecified
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
  Story Points: ---
  Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
 Documentation: ---


Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-IPC-Filter.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-IPC-Filter-0.004-1.fc18.src.rpm

Description:
The filter function provided by this module passes data through an external
command, thus providing filtering in non-pipeline situations.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3931141

*rt-0.10_02

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 676879] Review Request: mpiexec - MPI job launcher that uses the PBS task interface directly

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676879

Jussi Lehtola  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi

--- Comment #18 from Jussi Lehtola  2012-03-25 13:40:28 
EDT ---
Hmm, this seems a rather nontrivial review, at least properly done.

As noted above by Doug in comment #11, the applicability of the package is
rather limited. I find it hard to imagine that anyone would run a cluster with
current Fedora (or RHEL) and use an antique queueing system that doesn't have
out-of-the-box support for MPI, as there are other queue managers (and MPI
libraries) which handle this without problems.

This being said, if there is enough interest, the package can of course be
included in Fedora. But for a good review to take place, the reviewer should
also test if the program works (which, admittedly, doesn't always happen).

Although I'm a heavy user of clusters and queue systems (and have had a hand in
writing the Fedora MPI guidelines), I lack the knowledge to properly review
this package.

IMHO, this package is a curiosity, and can be said to be obsolete.

If you (or someone else) ends up packaging this in Fedora, the name needs to be
changed, 'mpiexec' is just too general. To reflect the use case of the package,
something like pbs-mpiexec or torque-mpiexec (or -mpich) would be far more
suitable and less prone to cause problems.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806646] New: Review Request: perl-Data-Pond - Perl-based open notation for data

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Pond - Perl-based open notation for data
Alias: perl-Data-Pond

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806646

   Summary: Review Request: perl-Data-Pond - Perl-based open
notation for data
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: Unspecified
   URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Data-Pond/
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
  Severity: unspecified
  Priority: unspecified
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
  Story Points: ---
  Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
 Documentation: ---


Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Data-Pond.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Data-Pond-0.004-1.fc18.src.rpm

Description:
This module is concerned with representing data structures in a textual
notation known as "Pond" (Perl-based open notation for data). The notation
is a strict subset of Perl expression syntax, but is intended to have language-
independent use. It is similar in spirit to JSON, which is based on
JavaScript, but Pond represents fewer data types directly.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3930989

*rt-0.10_02

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 798079] Review Request: vaildns - DNS and DNSSEC zone file validator:q

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798079

--- Comment #5 from Paul Wouters  2012-03-25 13:19:09 EDT 
---
Thanks Mattia!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806643] New: Review Request: perl-End - Generalized END blocks

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: perl-End - Generalized END blocks
Alias: perl-End

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806643

   Summary: Review Request: perl-End - Generalized END blocks
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: Unspecified
   URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/End/
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
  Severity: unspecified
  Priority: unspecified
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
  Story Points: ---
  Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
 Documentation: ---


Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-End.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-End-2009110401-1.fc18.src.rpm

Description:
The module End exports a single subroutine which allows you to set up some code
that is run whenever the current block is exited, regardless whether that is
due to a return, next, last, redo, exit, die, goto or just reaching the end of
the block.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3930946

*rt-0.10_02

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 798079] Review Request: vaildns - DNS and DNSSEC zone file validator:q

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798079

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters  2012-03-25 13:09:17 EDT 
---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: validns
Short Description: DNS and DNSSEC zone file validator
Owners: pwouters
Branches: 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 711899] Review Request: opendnssec - DNSSEC key and zone management software

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711899

--- Comment #15 from Paul Wouters  2012-03-25 13:03:49 EDT 
---
The new 1.4.x branch no longer ships with the Auditor, so it no longer requires
any ruby code.

ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/dns/opendnssec/opendnssec.spec
ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/dns/opendnssec/opendnssec-1.4.0-0.a1.fc16.src.rpm

* Sun Mar 25 2012 Paul Wouters  - 1.4.0-0.a1
- The 1.4.x branch no longer needs ruby, as the auditor has been removed
- Added missing openssl-devel BuildRequire
- Comment out  so keys generated by ods can be used by bind

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806641] New: Review Request: perl-Test-TinyMocker - A very simple tool to mock external modules

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-TinyMocker - A very simple tool to mock 
external modules
Alias: perl-Test-TinyMocker

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806641

   Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-TinyMocker - A very simple
tool to mock external modules
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: Unspecified
   URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-TinyMocker/
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
  Severity: unspecified
  Priority: unspecified
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: iarn...@gmail.com
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
  Story Points: ---
  Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
 Documentation: ---


Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Test-TinyMocker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fedorapeople.org/~iarnell/review/perl-Test-TinyMocker-0.03-1.fc18.src.rpm

Description:
This module allows you to override methods with arbitrary code blocks. This
lets
you simulate some kind of behavior for your tests.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3930919

*rt-0.10_02

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 730697] Review Request: python26-h5py - Python interface to the HDF5 library

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730697

Mattias Ellert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se
   Flag||fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert  2012-03-25 
11:12:16 EDT ---
Fedora review python26-h5py

rpmlint 86961332675217766851026/result/python26-h5py/*.rpm
python26-h5py.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The warnong is bogus, the source tarfile exists of the given URL.

+ The package name is appropriate for a python 2.6 package in EPEL
+ The specfile is named after the package
+ The package is licensed under a Fedora approved license (BSD)
+ The package license matches the license staements in the sources
+ The license file (License.txt) is included in the package
+ The specfile is written in legible English
+ Soutces matches upstream:

$ md5sum srpm/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz 
cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b  srpm/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz
cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b  h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz

+ Package builds in mock
+ Build requires are sensible
+ No locales
+ No shared libraries in default library path
+ The bundled lzf code is not used (patch applied)
+ Package owns the directories it creates
+ No duplication in %files
+ File permissions are sane
+ Specfile uses macros consistently
+ Contains code
+ %doc not runtime essential
+ No static libraries
+ No development files
+ No subpackages
+ No libtool archives
+ Package does not own directories owned by other packages
+ Filenames ar valid UTF8

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 722956] Review Request: relevation - Command-line search for Revelation Password Manager files

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722956

Kalev Lember  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember  2012-03-25 09:34:47 
EDT ---
Fedora review relevation-1.1-1.src.rpm 2012-03-25

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint relevation relevation-1.1-1.src.rpm 
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ Rpmlint output is clean
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license file (LICENSE)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  c38d6eb28130bac341ff1547f3f4f477  relevation-1.1.tar.gz
  c38d6eb28130bac341ff1547f3f4f477  Download/relevation-1.1.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

Some small nits:
 - The BuildRoot tag, the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at the beginning of %install
section, the whole %clean section, and the "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" line are
no longer needed with recent rpmbuild. Feel free to clean this up before
importing the package if you want to; it's certainly not blocking the review.
 - Careful when importing the package, because the spec file appears to have
fixed email addresses, compared to the source RPM.

Otherwise looks good. 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 722956] Review Request: relevation - Command-line search for Revelation Password Manager files

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722956

Kalev Lember  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com
  QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |kalevlem...@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember  2012-03-25 09:18:48 
EDT ---
Taking for review.

(In reply to comment #3)
> This package name conflicts with the original revelation package:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/revelation
> You need to find a different name.

I don't think there's any naming conflict. This package is:
  relevation
vs the existing one pointed out by Till:
  revelation

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 235954] Review Request: perl-Test-use-ok - Alternative to Test::More::use_ok

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235954

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||p...@city-fan.org
   Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #11 from Paul Howarth  2012-03-25 08:34:07 EDT 
---
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: perl-Test-use-ok
New Branches: el5
Owners: pghmcfc
InitialCC: perl-sig

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 666057] Review Request: weave-minimal - Minimal Firefox Sync Server

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666057

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||m...@zarb.org
 Resolution||WONTFIX
Last Closed||2012-03-25 07:33:59

--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 07:33:59 EDT ---
I am closing this request, since the weave server have been deprecated and is
now in python ( so a different code base, different name , etc ).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 658754] Review Request: CUBRID - a very fast and reliable open source SQL database server.

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658754

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org

--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 07:29:14 EDT ---
It seems the url is no longer valid.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806596] Review Request: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic the Hedgehog Universe

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806596

--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 07:09:39 EDT ---
I have no idea, you should see with them, there is good documentation on their
wiki.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806117] Review Request: Oplop - Generate account passwords based on account nicknames

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806117

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org

--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 07:06:48 EDT ---
Hi,

a few notes :
- if you use python3, you should requires python3-devel, not python-devel
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
The same goes for python2 ( and the software seems to be in python2, so maybe
the requires is wrong )

- %doc PKG-INFO README build/* oplop/* bin/*
why is everything in %doc ?


- rm -rf %{buildroot} is no longer needed, so does %defattr and %clean, and the
BuildRoot tag, see :

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

- %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --root=%{buildroot} --record=INSTALLED_FILES
since INSTALLED_FILES is not used, I think you should remove it

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling

- Requires:   python3 xclip
this is IMHO better to have 1 requires per line. This produce better diff , so
ease review of patches.

- I think the requires on python will be added automatically by rpm, so no need
to add it directly.

- unless you plan to use the rpm on EPEL 5, the definition of the macro is not
needed at the start of the spec, this is default since fedora 14 and can be
removed.

- the license should in %doc 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text and
if not, you should contact upstream to add a license file.

- there seems to be test in the zip, they should be run in %check.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806557] Review Request: python-django-followit - A django app that allows users to follow django model objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806557

Praveen Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #10 from Praveen Kumar  2012-03-25 
07:03:57 EDT ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-django-followit
Short Description: A django app that allows users to follow django model
objects
Owners: kumarpraveen
Branches: devel

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806596] Review Request: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic the Hedgehog Universe

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806596

--- Comment #3 from Minh Ngo  2012-03-25 06:52:20 EDT ---
Must I change the package name to push it into rpmfusion?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806596] Review Request: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic the Hedgehog Universe

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806596

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 06:43:21 EDT ---
Ok, seems to be blocked, according to
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-games-list/2008-March/msg2.html
( linked from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games#List_of_games_we_will_NOT_package ).

So I put a block on FE-Legal ( per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Main#FE-Legal )

I guess the block can be lifted once the name is changed, and there is new
original contents. Not sure if rpmfusion can be a solution for this one.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806596] Review Request: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic the Hedgehog Universe

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806596

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org

--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 06:37:44 EDT ---
I am rather doubtful about the graphics tiles, they look like a lot like the
original , at least for the playing characters : 
http://opensnc.sourceforge.net/home/screenshots.php

I am not sure if that's not a legal risk, can you get in touch with
fedora-legal ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 520463] Review Request: perl-common-sense - "Common sense" Perl defaults

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520463

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  
2012-03-25 06:29:49 EDT ---
perl-common-sense-3.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-common-sense-3.5-1.el5

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 768700] Review Request: sugar-flip - Simple strategic game of flipping coins

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768700

--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha  2012-03-25 06:12:56 
EDT ---
Created attachment 572507
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=572507
Review notes in a text file

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806562] Review Request: python-django-pagination - Django pagination tools

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806562

--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 06:12:29 EDT ---
The obsoletes for the previous packages are missing.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 768700] Review Request: sugar-flip - Simple strategic game of flipping coins

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768700

--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha  2012-03-25 06:11:52 
EDT ---
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue

[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[+] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[+] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[+] License
[?] License field in spec matches
Looks like it should also include MIT/X11/BSD and not just GPLv3+?
[ankur@ankur Flip-1]$ find . -name '*' -exec licensecheck '{}' \; | sed
'/UNKNOWN/ d'| sort | uniq
./FlipActivity.py: GPL (v3 or later)
./game.py: GPL (v3 or later)
./sprites.py: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
./toolbar_utils.py: GPL (v3 or later)
./utils.py: GPL (v3 or later)
[ankur@ankur Flip-1]$

[?] License file included in package
MIT/X11/BSD license is not included. Not a blocker though.

[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum:
[ankur@ankur SOURCES]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/sugar-flip.spec
Getting http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/Flip/Flip-1.tar.bz2 to
/tmp/review/Flip-1.tar.bz2
  % Total% Received % Xferd  Average Speed   TimeTime Time  Current
 Dload  Upload   Total   SpentLeft  Speed
100   262  100   2620 0182  0  0:00:01  0:00:01 --:--:--   853
100 23638  100 236380 0   5787  0  0:00:04  0:00:04 --:--:-- 13496
11b04aa7d6248b19f1447ff18ebb5f17  /tmp/review/Flip-1.tar.bz2
11b04aa7d6248b19f1447ff18ebb5f17  /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/Flip-1.tar.bz2

[-] Package needs ExcludeArch
[?] BuildRequires correct
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires the
BR needs to be python{2,3}-devel. Please correct it

[?] Spec handles locales/find_lang
I see gettext included, but I don't see find_lang used in here. 
The generated rpm does not contain any translations as well:

[ankur@ankur noarch]$ rpm -pql sugar-flip-1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/doc/sugar-flip-1
/usr/share/doc/sugar-flip-1/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/sugar-flip-1/NEWS
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/COPYING
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/FlipActivity.py
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/FlipActivity.pyc
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/FlipActivity.pyo
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/NEWS
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/activity
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/activity/activity-flip.svg
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/activity/activity.info
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/game.py
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/game.pyc
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/game.pyo
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/icons
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/icons/new-game.svg
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/setup.py
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/setup.pyc
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/setup.pyo
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/sprites.py
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/sprites.pyc
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/sprites.pyo
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/toolbar_utils.py
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/toolbar_utils.pyc
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/toolbar_utils.pyo
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/utils.py
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/utils.pyc
/usr/share/sugar/activities/Flip.activity/utils.pyo
[ankur@ankur noarch]$

[-] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
[+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
defattr not required anymore

[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[-] Doc subpackage needed/used.
[+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

[?] Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
This does feel like a GUI app. Please include a desktop file if this is so.

[+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
Scratch build for rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3930563

[?] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
While there aren't duplicate files, are the setup.py? required? This is only
required for building the package. It shouldn't be included in the rpm IMO.

[+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[+] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[?] No rpmlint output.
[ankur@ankur noarch]$ rpmlint sugar-flip-1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
../../SPECS/sugar-flip.spec ../../SRPMS/sugar-flip-1-1.fc16.src.rpm 
sugar-flip.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
../../SPECS/sugar-flip.spec:6: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-flip.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[ankur@ankur noarch]$

Not anything serious. Please recheck if the group you've used is a standard
one.

[+] final provides and requires are sane: Looks okay
== sugar-flip-1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm ==
Pro

[Bug 806594] Review Request: python-django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806594

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 06:13:30 EDT ---
You forgot the obsoletes of the old 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 772485] Review Request: wmnd - Dockapp for monitoring network interfaces

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772485

Thomas Spura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Spura  2012-03-25 
06:07:24 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Unpacking the usual way doesn't work for me, sorry. Neither gzip nor tar nor
> File Roller are able the unpack it correctly. The way I use in the spec works.

"spectool -c wmnd.spec && tar -xf wmnd-0.4.16.tar.gz" works fine here...

> $ md5sum *
> d8229eece41c9fd0fde12198ce85191a  wmnd-0.4.16.tar.gz
> d8229eece41c9fd0fde12198ce85191a  wmnd-0.4.16.tar.gz.packaged


$ rpmdev-md5 wmnd-0.4.16-1.fc16.src.rpm 
317b6794d053283d0eb6dba27cf04356  wmnd-0.4.16-1.fc16.src.rpm
e7d2b2084872253ace998ec47ddf908a  wmnd.spec
d8229eece41c9fd0fde12198ce85191a  wmnd-0.4.16.tar.gz

$ md5sum wmnd-0.4.16.tar.gz 
7369b40f330506cd687a5d3a630208c4  wmnd-0.4.16.tar.gz

Seems like you have a different tarball packaged as downloaded with spectool...

Could you try it with spectool again please?

Another issue would be: it should be "eine Dockapp" - like "eine Applikation".
 ^

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806562] Review Request: python-django-pagination - Django pagination tools

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806562

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 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 806594] Review Request: python-django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806594

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806594] Review Request: python-django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806594

Michael Scherer  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 806594] Review Request: python-django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806594

--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 05:58:14 EDT ---

Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



 Generic 
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
 least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %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.
[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 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.

rpmlint python-django-notification-0.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint python-django-notification-0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/src/806594/django-notification-0.2.tar.gz
:
  MD5SUM this package : 0ba8e2ef23e1bcd1bc83e508d7580782
  MD5SUM upstream package : 0ba8e2ef23e1bcd1bc83e508d7580782

[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 Latest version is packaged.
[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
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.


 Python 
[x]: MUST Module list python2-devel or python3-devel as BuildRequires
[x]: MUST Python egg is built from source



Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:


$ rpmlint python-django-notification-0.2-1.

[Bug 806557] Review Request: python-django-followit - A django app that allows users to follow django model objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806557

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge  2012-03-25 
05:49:17 EDT ---
Package is 

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806594] Review Request: python-django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806594

Michael Scherer  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 806557] Review Request: python-django-followit - A django app that allows users to follow django model objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806557

--- Comment #8 from Praveen Kumar  2012-03-25 
05:41:58 EDT ---
Made required changes.
SPEC:
http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/django-followit/python-django-followit.spec
SRPM:
http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/django-followit/python-django-followit-0.0.3-3.fc16.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806557] Review Request: python-django-followit - A django app that allows users to follow django model objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806557

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de
   Flag||fedora-review?

--- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge  2012-03-25 
05:15:58 EDT ---
Oh well, I removed those, they were re-generated during rpmbuild. 

I guess, "Do not distribute eggs from upstream" is explicit. (Taken from 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs  )

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806596] New: Review Request: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic the Hedgehog Universe

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic the Hedgehog 
Universe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806596

   Summary: Review Request: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic
the Hedgehog Universe
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: nlmin...@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:
https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/opensonic-fedora/fc17517ec2a3b278331575967239943ac35f80c5/opensonic.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/Ignotus/opensonic-fedora/blob/fc17517ec2a3b278331575967239943ac35f80c5/opensonic-0.1.4-1.fc17.src.rpm?raw=true
Description: opensonic - Game Based on the Sonic the Hedgehog Universe

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806557] Review Request: python-django-followit - A django app that allows users to follow django model objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806557

--- Comment #6 from Praveen Kumar  2012-03-25 
05:06:49 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I think then for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299 also
> > obsoletes should be %{pkgname} < 0.7-4 ? (because we have to Obsolete 
> > anything
> > that is lower than the bumped release of the renamed package)
> You're right, I missed that. 
> 
> I'm just curious, where did you get that about obsolete: (I made the same
> error, so I guess, we had the same reference, and I'd like to correct the
> reference.)

Well I got that right information from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Django_rename#Django-foo but I
interpreted it wrongly, when you pointed out I looked again and found out I
made same mistake in previous request. I think reference is correct, we took it
a wrong way.


(In reply to comment #4)
>One real issue:
>You should remove bundled .egg-info in prep-section
>rm -rf django_followit.egg-info
>(cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs)

According to reference if egg-info contain any pre-compiled bytecode then we
have to remove it but here it's only contain package information files, do we
have to remove those also?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly 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

--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer  2012-03-25 05:04:12 EDT ---
For the example, wouldn't removing the permission to execute be sufficient ?

The debuginfo issue is maybe listed on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo , and is a MUST, so should
be fixed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 772406] Review Request: cpulimit - CPU Usage Limiter for Linux

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772406

Thomas Spura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #7 from Thomas Spura  2012-03-25 
04:46:51 EDT ---
I'll have a look soon.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 735160] Review Request: django-socialregistration - Django application enabling registration through a variety of APIs

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160

--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge  2012-03-25 
04:34:50 EDT ---
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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: 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.

rpmlint django-socialregistration-0.4.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint django-socialregistration-0.4.5-1.fc18.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/review/735160/django-socialregistration-0.4.5.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package : 4d5d04490794e2eb96748d673c611f97
  MD5SUM upstream package : 4d5d04490794e2eb96748d673c611f97

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!]: 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.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
 Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Pa

[Bug 703503] Review Request: ghc-xdg-basedir - Haskell library implementing XDG base directory spec

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703503

Lakshmi Narasimhan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Status Whiteboard|notready|Ready

--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan  2012-03-25 
04:31:53 EDT ---
Spec file:
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-xdg-basedir.spec

SRPM:
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-xdg-basedir-0.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm

rpmlint  -i ghc-xdg-basedir-devel-0.2.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-xdg-basedir-0.2.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-xdg-basedir-0.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm 
../ghc-xdg-basedir.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806557] Review Request: python-django-followit - A django app that allows users to follow django model objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806557

--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge  2012-03-25 
04:12:14 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think then for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299 also
> obsoletes should be %{pkgname} < 0.7-4 ? (because we have to Obsolete anything
> that is lower than the bumped release of the renamed package)
You're right, I missed that. 

I'm just curious, where did you get that about obsolete: (I made the same
error, so I guess, we had the same reference, and I'd like to correct the
reference.)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806557] Review Request: python-django-followit - A django app that allows users to follow django model objects

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806557

--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge  2012-03-25 
04:08:11 EDT ---
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.
[!]: 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 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.

rpmlint python-django-followit-0.0.3-2.fc18.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint python-django-followit-0.0.3-2.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/mrunge/review/806557/django-followit-0.0.3.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package : d5a675c5cd570ca91a5fb376153096ec
  MD5SUM upstream package : d5a675c5cd570ca91a5fb376153096ec

[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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
 for EPE

[Bug 806594] Review Request: python-django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806594

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||736776

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806594] New: Review Request: python-django-notification - User notification management for the Django web framework

[bugzilla]

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-django-notification - User notification 
management for the Django web framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806594

   Summary: Review Request: python-django-notification - User
notification management for the Django web framework
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
 Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: mru...@matthias-runge.de
 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://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-notification.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-notification-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Many sites need to notify users when certain events have occurred
and to
allow configurable options as to how those notifications are to be received.

The project aims to provide a Django app for this sort of functionality.
This includes:

* submission of notification messages by other apps
* notification messages on signing in
* notification messages via email (configurable by user)
* notification messages via feed


Please note, this is a review request required for renaming.

[mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-django-notification.spec
../SRPMS/python-django-notification-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/python-django-notification-0.2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


koji scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3930511

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 735160] Review Request: django-socialregistration - Django application enabling registration through a variety of APIs

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|methe...@gmail.com  |mru...@matthias-runge.de
   Flag||fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge  2012-03-25 
03:36:46 EDT ---
OK, 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

[Bug 635086] Review Request: python-zope-datetime - Zope datetime utilities

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635086

--- Comment #3 from Robin Lee  2012-03-25 02:57:31 EDT 
---
Changes:
- Update to 3.4.1
- Drop BR python-zope-testing

Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-datetime.spec
SRPM URL:
http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-datetime-3.4.1-1.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review