[Bug 809633] Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809633 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 --- Comment #43 from Remi Collet 2012-04-04 01:53:49 EDT --- @Joe, about the php-pear-1.9.4-restcache.patch (first applied in RHEL) do you have a link to an upstream bug we could add, as comment, in the spec, and track for future version ? -- 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 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 --- Comment #42 from Remi Collet 2012-04-04 01:49:37 EDT --- Arg.. reading my previous post, it seems LICENSE is mark as "data" instead of "doc" (quite usual error in pear) => comment added to the previous BUG. About LICENSE-XML_RPC, as file is not provided by upstream, and according to Guidelines, we don't have to add it, but request Upstream to do it Done: https://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=19368 -- 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 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 --- Comment #41 from Remi Collet 2012-04-04 01:40:17 EDT --- About License files. I think we should never alter the upstream provided file, and as rpmlint say "Ask upstream to ..." Done: https://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=19367 License files are installed twice, ex: /usr/share/doc/php-pear-1.9.4/LICENSE-Structures_Graph (rpm standard, but for file not installed by upstream) /usr/share/pear/data/Structures_Graph/LICENSE (pear standard) We should probably keep only 1 copy (the pear standard, as all the other pear packages, according to PHP Guidelines) -- 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 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 --- Comment #40 from Remi Collet 2012-04-04 01:21:51 EDT --- Jon, can you attach the proposed fixes to this bug reports ? About patch-not-applied, patch is applied, but in %install (yes, this is uggly) Moving it to %prep is possible, of course (but patched file will need to be pushed in buildroot after install, which use the tarball, not the uncompressed files) -- 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 808254] Review Request: twirssi - Allows you to post to Twitter from Irssi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808254 --- Comment #4 from Julian C. Dunn 2012-04-04 00:48:10 EDT --- http://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/twirssi/twirssi.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/twirssi/twirssi-2.5.1-2.fc18.src.rpm Fixed: - Package summary is now more meaningful - Included both upstream GPL and README as %doc items - Requires: perl(Irssi::Irc) - Permissions on script and doc files now 0644 - Install all docs and script with -p - Fixed mixed-spaces-and-tabs and trailing whitespace in specfile -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802050] Review request: love - A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-04 00:08:46 EDT --- love-0.8.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/love-0.8.0-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802050] Review request: love - A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802050] Review request: love - A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-04 00:11:32 EDT --- love-0.8.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/love-0.8.0-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807113] Review Request: zanata-util - Helper scripts for using Zanata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807113 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-03 23:27:06 EDT --- zanata-util-0.2.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-util-0.2.3-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802050] Review request: love - A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #27 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-03 23:23:39 EDT --- It seems version 0.8.0 was tagged yesterday, so I'm going to import 0.8.0 as soon as I confirm this is a new sample release and not a mistake. Though at the moment, it seems like I won't need to make an unstable after all. Anyway, for Martin Airs and anyone who is interested in rebuilding in the mean time, here's the Updated SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/love-0.8.0-1.fc16.src.rpm (In reply to comment #26) > Git done (by process-git-requests). Thanks :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 --- Comment #11 from Paul Wouters 2012-04-03 22:32:49 EDT --- I'll take this review, as I created a spec file and only then saw someone actually already had one :) Stanislav, can you look at my spec file and merge in the changes? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pwout...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||review? --- Comment #10 from Paul Wouters 2012-04-03 22:30:11 EDT --- Created attachment 575019 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=575019 knot 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 802050] Review request: love - A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 --- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 22:02:22 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807113] Review Request: zanata-util - Helper scripts for using Zanata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807113 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-03 21:50:15 EDT --- zanata-util-0.2.3-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-util-0.2.3-1.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 807113] Review Request: zanata-util - Helper scripts for using Zanata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807113 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802050] Review request: love - A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-03 21:27:23 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: love Short Description: A free 2D game engine which enables easy game creation in Lua Owners: mystro256 Branches: F15 F16 F17 devel 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 807113] Review Request: zanata-util - Helper scripts for using Zanata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807113 --- Comment #10 from Ding-Yi Chen 2012-04-03 19:28:24 EDT --- Oops, I forgot to add el6. Please add it for me. Thanks for kindly reminded me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664920] Review Request: perl-Web-Scraper - Web Scraping Toolkit using HTML and CSS Selectors or XPath expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664920 Bug 664920 depends on bug 664912, which changed state. Bug 664912 Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664912 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664912] Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664912 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||emmanuel.seyman@club-intern ||et.fr Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-04-03 17:14:53 --- Comment #19 from Emmanuel Seyman 2012-04-03 17:14:53 EDT --- I've exchanged emails with Ralf and he given me his OK for me to package this module so that this one can be unblocked. I've thus submitted bug #809633 and would very much appreciate a review. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 809633 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809633] Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809633 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman 2012-04-03 17:14:53 EDT --- *** Bug 664912 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 809633] Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809633 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||664920 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664920] Review Request: perl-Web-Scraper - Web Scraping Toolkit using HTML and CSS Selectors or XPath expressions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664920 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||809633 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809632] New: Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809632 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 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: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809633] New: Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml
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-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809633 Summary: Review Request: perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML - HTML::TreeBuilder and XPath compatible interface with libxml Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 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://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML/perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML-0.16-1.fc16.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML/perl-HTML-TreeBuilder-LibXML-0.16-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath is a libxml based compatible interface to HTML::TreeBuilder, which could be slow for a large document. HTML::TreeBuilder::LibXML is drop-in-replacement for HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath. rpmlint output is clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809632] Review Request: -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809632 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2012-04-03 17:03:53 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 15:38:28 EDT --- Ignore -static, I see that that was done, and I missed it. Also, I tried building on rawhide, and it wants java-1.6.0-openjdk, and so fails. -- 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 803148] Review Request: python-pycallgraph - A module that creates call graphs for Python programs
Please do not reply directly 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-pycallgraph-0.5.1-2. ||fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-04-03 15:56:00 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-03 15:56:00 EDT --- python-pycallgraph-0.5.1-2.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 806517] Review Request: pycscope - Generates a cscope index of Python source trees
Please do not reply directly 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||pycscope-0.3-3.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-04-03 15:52:23 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-03 15:52:23 EDT --- pycscope-0.3-3.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 806517] Review Request: pycscope - Generates a cscope index of Python source trees
Please do not reply directly 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 Fixed In Version|pycscope-0.3-3.fc15 |pycscope-0.3-3.fc16 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-03 15:54:00 EDT --- pycscope-0.3-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809614] New: Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809614 Summary: Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ade...@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://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2.spec SRPM URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.beta.el5.centos.src.rpm Description: GFAL 2.0 provides a unified interface for POSIX-like file interaction and file transfer operations for a set of file access protocols. Designed for the wlcg data management, It offers an extensible plugin systems able to support new protocols. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 15:27:13 EDT --- Fresh review. Good: - rpmlint checks return: oprofile.spec:129: W: macro-in-comment %doc There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. oprofile.spec:198: W: macro-in-%changelog %pre Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Trivial to fix. oprofile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. oprofile.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/oprofile-0.9.7/COPYING oprofile-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/oprofile-0.9.7/daemon/liblegacy/p_module.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. Ignore, fixable upstream. oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opjitconv Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprofiled Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Fix if feasible. oprofile.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel We shouldn't remove created users or groups. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Header files and libraries for developing apps which will use oprofile. Summary ends with a dot. Trivial fix. oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if feasible. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C GUI for oprofile. Summary ends with a dot. Trivial to fix. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oprof -> prof, proof, o prof The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprof_start Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if feasible. oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.so oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. Should the .a be included, and should the .so files be in -devel? oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-x86_64.conf A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. Fix. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source Says GPLv2, should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+. - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel
[Bug 809530] Review Request: qt-at-spi - Qt plugin that bridges Qt's accessibility API to AT-SPI2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809530 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter 2012-04-03 15:31:01 EDT --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-at-spi/qt-at-spi.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-at-spi/qt-at-spi-0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Apr 03 2012 Rex Dieter 0.2-2 - License: LGPLv2+ - -doc subpkg -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226534] Merge Review: vte
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226534 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2012-04-03 15:12:00 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 15:12:00 EDT --- Committed fixes. APPROVED, closing. -- 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 809530] Review Request: qt-at-spi - Qt plugin that bridges Qt's accessibility API to AT-SPI2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809530
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik 2012-04-03 14:59:10
EDT ---
Name: ok
Version: ok
Summary: ok
License: NOT OK (LGPLv2+)
Sources: ok
BuildRoot: not needed anymore
BuildRequires: ok
Description: ok
Macros used consistently: ok
Docs: ok, for devel docs stuff maybe subpackage to -docs?
rpmlint qt-at-spi-0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
qt-at-spi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in,
plugging
qt-at-spi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in,
plug-in, plugging
> ok
qt-at-spi.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{snap}
qt-at-spi.src: W: invalid-url Source0: qt-at-spi-qt-at-spi-v0.2.tar.gz
> described how to get snapshot/released version
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
ok
Please fix the license, otherwise really very simple 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 226534] Merge Review: vte
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226534 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi 2012-04-03 14:22:51 EDT --- Feel free to commit fixes. ;) Note that this package is unlikely to ever update. Newer vte has dropped support for gtk2, which this package provides. Feel free to fix the minor things. -- 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 226534] Merge Review: vte
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226534 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ke...@scrye.com, ||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 14:12:40 EDT --- Adding maintainer, fresh review. Good: - rpmlint checks return: vte.spec:516: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 58, tab: line 516) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Trivial to fix. vte.src: W: no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. I'd suggest http://developer.gnome.org/vte/. vte-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vte Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Unsure. Lots and lots of incorrect fsf address, will be addressed when this gets updated. vte.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gtk-2.0/vtemodule.so vtemodule.so()(64bit) A shared object soname provides is provided by a file in a path from which other packages should not directly load shared objects from. Such shared objects should thus not be depended on and they should not result in provides in the containing package. Get rid of the provides if appropriate, for example by filtering it out during build. Note that in some cases this may require disabling rpmbuild's internal dependency generator. Fix or comment. vte.x86_64: E: setgid-binary /usr/lib64/vte/gnome-pty-helper utmp 02711L The file is setgid. Usually this is a packaging bug. If this is a game, then, you should use the proper rpm group, or location. vte.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/vte/gnome-pty-helper 02711L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. vte.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/vte/gnome-pty-helper 02711L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. Likely OK. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( LGPLv2+ ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Pretty good, let me know if you want me to commit any fixes. -- 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 808987] Review Request: python-certifi - Mozilla's SSL Certs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808987 --- Comment #2 from Arun SAG 2012-04-03 14:14:11 EDT --- Updated, SPEC: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-certifi.spec SRPM: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-certifi-0.0.8-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? Bug 226295 depends on bug 468255, which changed state. Bug 468255 Summary: doc files are not in %doc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468255 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED --- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 13:53:13 EDT --- Fresh review: Good: - rpmlint checks return: php-pear.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: php-pear-1.9.4-restcache.patch A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches documentation to see what's wrong. Fix. php-pear.noarch: W: self-obsoletion php-pear-XML-Util <= 1.2.1 obsoletes php-pear-XML-Util = 1.2.1-5.fc18 The package obsoletes itself. This is known to cause errors in various tools and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones. Fix. php-pear.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/php-pear-1.9.4/LICENSE-Structures_Graph php-pear.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/pear/data/Structures_Graph/LICENSE The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. Trivial fix. Same hidden, zerolength and config-not-noreplace as above, still ok. php-pear.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/pear/XML_Util/examples/example.php The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1). Fix. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( BSD and PHP and LGPLv2+ ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file This is really pretty good, just the self-obsoletion, patch, license address and encoding. Let me know if you want me to commit any of these fixes. -- 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 225898] Merge Review: imake
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225898 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 13:36:38 EDT --- ajax, I'm looking at reviewing this, and I could also see a case for splitting it, since it's 5 separate upstream tarballs, granted from the same source, so it would be easier to maintain. I'd suggest retirement, but they're still maintained upstream. If you submit rename reviews for each, I'll do them. If you want me to do the splitting, I could do that as well. -- 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 806018] Review Request: jboss-jsf-2.1-api - JavaServer Faces 2.1 API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806018 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 805999] Review Request: jboss-saaj-1.3-api - SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805999 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730306] Review Request: jboss-interceptors-1.1-api - Interceptors 1.1 API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730306 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juan.hernan...@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 225254] Merge Review: apr-util
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225254 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 13:13:21 EDT --- Fresh review: Good: - rpmlint checks return: apr-util-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apu-1-config Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. apr-util-freetds.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-ldap.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-nss.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crytpo -> crypt The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. apr-util-nss.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. apr-util-nss.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-odbc.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-openssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crytpo -> crypt The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. apr-util-openssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. apr-util-openssl.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-pgsql.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. apr-util-sqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Mostly ignorable. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ASL 2.0 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files Patch from comment * should be applied. - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r So it's pretty much just the static lib issue. Let me know if you want me to commit anything. -- 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 225766] Merge Review: fonts-KOI8-R
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225766 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 13:12:13 EDT --- I started reviewing this, but first and foremost it need to be converted to the new font guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy than, would you like assistance with this? -- 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 808987] Review Request: python-certifi - Mozilla's SSL Certs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808987
--- Comment #1 from Praveen Kumar 2012-04-03
12:54:01 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.
[?]: 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: 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.
[!]: 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 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.
[?]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-certifi.spec ../SRPMS/python-certifi-0.0.8-1.fc16.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/python-certifi-0.0.8-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
python-certifi.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-certifi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/core.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[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.
[!]: 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.
Issue :
1. MUST Permissions on files are set properly. (rpmlint throwing error)
2. MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed i
[Bug 225253] Merge Review: apr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225253
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||limburg...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com
Status Whiteboard|NotReady|
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 12:38:21 EDT
---
Fresh review.
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
apr-devel.x86_64: E: rpath-in-buildconfig /usr/bin/apr-1-config lines ['46']
This build configuration file contains rpaths which will be introduced into
dependent packages.
Fix.
apr-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apr-1-config
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
Fix if possible.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( ASL 2.0 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
There is one .la file, in -devel, %{_libdir}/libapr-1.la.
This needs to go either in -static, or -devel needs Provides: apr-static =
%{version}-%{release}
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r
Let me know if you want me to make any of these fixes. Thanks!
--
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 226522] Merge Review: valgrind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226522
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 12:11:17 EDT
---
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
valgrind.spec:24: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes valgrind-callgrind
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.
This should be fixed, or removed if no longer needed.
valgrind.spec:27: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libc.so
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
This should be replaced by arch-specific requires on glibc-devel.
valgrind.spec:169: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/valgrind/$j
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
Should be fixed.
valgrind.spec:368: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_prefix}
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
valgrind.spec:461: W: macro-in-%changelog %rip)
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
These are easily fixed.
valgrind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US malloc -> mallow
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
Ignore.
valgrind.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.7.0-2 ['1:3.7.0-2.fc18',
'1:3.7.0-2']
The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
Fix.
valgrind.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided valgrind-callgrind
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.
Fix or remove, see above.
Lots of unstripped binary or object warnings, and some statically linked
binaries, as well as shared lib without dep info. I'm assuming these should be
ignored, this being valgrind, but you should check them out to be sure.
valgrind.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/valgrind-3.7.0/COPYING
valgrind-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/valgrind/vki/vki-s390x-linux.h
valgrind-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/valgrind/pub_tool_libcsetjmp.h
valgrind-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/valgrind/pub_tool_gdbserver.h
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
Fix if possible, or bug upstream.
Lots of dangling relative symlink errors that should probably be fixed.
valgrind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vgdb
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
valgrind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cg_diff
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
valgrind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary valgrind-listener
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
valgrind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cg_merge
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
valgrind-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
valgrind-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
Fix if possible.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( GPLv2 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all director
[Bug 809530] Review Request: qt-at-spi - Qt plugin that bridges Qt's accessibility API to AT-SPI2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809530 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jrez...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jrez...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 635511] Review Request: assimp - Library to import various 3D model formats into applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635511
Tim Niemueller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #43 from Tim Niemueller 2012-04-03 11:53:09
EDT ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
- rpmlint is not silent and some messages may not be ignored
assimp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: assimp-1071.tar.bz2
Is ok, source is created with script that comes with the package from svn and
deleting dll files
assimp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary assimp
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license ().
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
(+) The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Source is downloaded from svn and modified to not ship windows DLLs. I have
done an own checkout and compared my version and the package version with diff.
No changes have been shown.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ Spec file calls ldconfig
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
(+) The package consistently uses macros.
You use macros most of the time, but $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Please consider using
%{buildroot} instead.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files in devel sub-package
0 No static libraries.
+ pkgconfig(.pc) files in devel package
+ Non-suffix so file is in devel sub-package
+ Devel sub-package properly depends on main package
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Looks good. Please fix macro usage before importing. Please consider providing
it for EPEL 6 if feasible (e.g requirements are met).
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 809541] New: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809541 Summary: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise 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/org.osgi.enterprise.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/org.osgi.enterprise-4.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: OSGi Enterprise library -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809540] New: Review Request: eclipselink - Eclipse Persistence Services Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: eclipselink - Eclipse Persistence Services Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809540 Summary: Review Request: eclipselink - Eclipse Persistence Services Project 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/eclipselink.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/eclipselink-2.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Eclipse Persistence Services Project, more commonly known as EclipseLink, is a Java comprehensive persistence framework delivering a set of persistence services based around standards. This lets you rapidly build applications that combine the best aspects of object technology and the specific data source. . EclipseLink was started by a donation of the full source code and test suites of Oracle's TopLink product. . EclipseLink's services currently include object-relational with JPA, object-XML binding in MOXy (with support for JAXB), a Service Data Objects (SDO) implementation and support for another technologies like: Database Web Services (DWS), XML-Relational (XRM) and Non-Relational (EIS via JCA). depend on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809536 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809539 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809539] New: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809539 Summary: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise 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/org.osgi.enterprise.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/org.osgi.enterprise-4.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: OSGi Enterprise library -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809536] New: Review Request: sdo-api-java - Service Data Objects 2.1 Java API spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: sdo-api-java - Service Data Objects 2.1 Java API spec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809536 Summary: Review Request: sdo-api-java - Service Data Objects 2.1 Java API spec 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/sdo-api-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/sdo-api-java-1.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: SDO is a framework for data application development, which includes an architecture and API. SDO does the following: - Simplifies the J2EE data programming model - Abstracts data in a service oriented architecture (SOA) - Unifies data application development - Supports and integrates XML - Incorporates J2EE patterns and best practices With SDO, you do not need to be familiar with a technology-specific API in order to access and utilize data. You need to know only one API, the SDO API, which lets you work with data from multiple data sources, including relational databases, entity EJB components, XML pages, Web services, the Java Connector Architecture, JavaServer Pages pages, and more. This package contains only a Java API of SDO 2.1 spec. EclipseLink is a implementation of this spec. depend on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809533 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809533] New: Review Request: tuscany-parent - Apache Tuscany Project Parent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: tuscany-parent - Apache Tuscany Project Parent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809533 Summary: Review Request: tuscany-parent - Apache Tuscany Project Parent 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/tuscany-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/tuscany-parent-2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Parent POM defining settings that can be used across Tuscany -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809532] New: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809532 Summary: Review Request: org.osgi.enterprise - OSGi Enterprise 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/org.osgi.enterprise.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/org.osgi.enterprise-4.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: OSGi enterprise library -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809530] New: Review Request: qt-at-spi - Qt plugin that bridges Qt's accessibility API to AT-SPI2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: qt-at-spi - Qt plugin that bridges Qt's accessibility API to AT-SPI2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809530 Summary: Review Request: qt-at-spi - Qt plugin that bridges Qt's accessibility API to AT-SPI2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdie...@math.unl.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://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-at-spi/qt-at-spi.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt-at-spi/qt-at-spi-0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Qt plugin that bridges Qt's accessibility API to AT-SPI2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226425] Merge Review: sox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 11:00:27 EDT --- Lukas, if you're still working on this, please set the review-flag to ? and status to ASSIGNED. If not, I can take over. Thanks! -- 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 226522] Merge Review: valgrind
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226522 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 10:53:04 EDT --- I'll have a look. -- 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 809395] Review Request: jboss-as - JBoss Application Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809395
--- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández 2012-04-03
10:41:48 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
Output of rpmlint of the source package:
$ rpmlint jboss-as-7.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-as.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossas HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-as.src: W: strange-permission jboss-as-systemd.sh 0755L
jboss-as.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-as-7.1.0.Final-CLEAN.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
The invalid-url warning is usual, but the URL is correct.
The strange-permission warning is acceptable. This could be
avoided removing the permissions from the source file and adding
them in the %install section of the spec using "install -m 755"
instead of "cp -p".
The invalid-url warning for the source is acceptable, as this is a
git checkout.
The output of rpmlint of the main binary package is too log, due
to warnings mostly, I will include it as attachment to the bug.
Here are some relevant errors and warnings:
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/domain/data 0775L
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/standalone/data
0775L
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/domain/tmp 0775L
These permissions are necessary because the application server runs
as jboss-as:jboss-as and needs to write to those directories but
the directories are owned by root:jboss-as.
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jboss-as/auth 0700L
This directory is owned by jboss-as:jboss-as and I guess that it
stores credentials here, thus the restrictive permission.
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/jboss-as/standalone 0770L
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/jboss-as/domain 0770L
These are log directories and they are protected so that normal
users can't access them.
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/jboss-as/standalone 0775L
jboss-as.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/jboss-as/domain 0775L
These etc directories are owned by root:jboss-as and the
application server needs to write there in order to update the
configuration files when changes are perfored using the web
console or the CLI.
jboss-as.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I don't really understand the reason of this warning.
jboss-as.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/usr/share/jboss-as/modules/org/jboss/marshalling/main/module.xml jboss-as
Most of the files show this warning (repeated 814 times) because
they are owned by the jboss-as group. I think that most of the
files can be safely owned by the root group and the warning will go away.
jboss-as.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/jboss-as/modules/javax/faces/api/main/jboss-jsf-2.1-api.jar
/usr/share/java/jboss-jsf-2.1-api.jar
This warning is repeated 102 times, and I hink that they are false
positives, maybe a rpmlint issue. I checked them manually and all
of them are present and contained in one of the packages required
by jboss-as.
Output of rpmlint of the javadoc package:
$ rpmlint jboss-as-javadoc-7.1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
jboss-as-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-as-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossas HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These warnings are acceptable.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3959116
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2
Some of the file state in their header that the license is ASL
2.0. To find them:
grep --recursive 'Apache License' *
The license type should be "LGPLv2 and ASL 2.0".
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
The javadoc subpackage doesn't include a copy of the license.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Checked using a recursive diff of the sources.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, e
[Bug 635511] Review Request: assimp - Library to import various 3D model formats into applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635511 Tim Niemueller changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@niemueller.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #42 from Tim Niemueller 2012-04-03 10:45:29 EDT --- I'll take it since I need 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 809395] Review Request: jboss-as - JBoss Application Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809395 --- Comment #4 from Juan Hernández 2012-04-03 10:42:56 EDT --- Created attachment 574887 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=574887 rpmlint output -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809503] New: Review Request: liquibase - Database refactoring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: liquibase - Database refactoring tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809503 Summary: Review Request: liquibase - Database refactoring tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dgood...@rm-rf.ca 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://dgoodwin.fedorapeople.org/liquibase/liquibase.spec SRPM URL: http://dgoodwin.fedorapeople.org/liquibase/liquibase-2.0.3-5.fc16.src.rpm Description: LiquiBase is an open source (Apache 2.0 License), database-independent library for tracking, managing and applying database changes. It is built on a simple premise: All database changes are stored in a human readable yet trackable form and checked into source control. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225697
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 10:29:31 EDT
---
- rpmlint checks return:
distcache.spec:57: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have to use
a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
distcache.src: W: strange-permission dc_client.init 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
distcache.src: W: strange-permission dc_server.init 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
I'm willing to fix the above if you like.
distcache.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/distcache-1.4.5/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
Minor.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( LGPLv2 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok - SEE ABOVE
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent - SEE ABOVE
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r
So it's really just the minor things from rpmlint, which I'll commit fixes for
unless you object, so we can close this. Then there's the systemd migration,
but there's already a BZ open for that. I can do that if you like.
--
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 225697] Merge Review: distcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225697 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- 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 225697] Merge Review: distcache
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225697 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 10:05:46 EDT --- I'll give this a go. -- 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 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-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 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 --- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-04-03 09:58:45 EDT --- I'm lifting the Legal block on this, after consulting with Red Hat Legal. The review can proceed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760153] Review Request: xcb-util-wm - Client and window-manager helper library on top of libxcb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760153 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 09:55:00 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807113] Review Request: zanata-util - Helper scripts for using Zanata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807113 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-03 09:55:48 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). If you want EL-6, EL-6 might not be a bad idea either, but that's up to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809348] Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809348
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha 2012-04-03 06:10:36
EDT ---
rpmlint output looks good:
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i ../SPECS/darkclient.spec
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm darkclient-0.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
darkclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary darkclient
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$
Some nitpicks. (Not blockers):
1. python2-devel, not python-devel
2. Please use the --skip-build flag in setup.py install
3. Please replace the "darkclients" in the spec with the %{name} macro.
4. Similarly, please replace the "0.1" in the egg info with %{version}
One blocker:
It appears that the README file is included both in %doc and in the
%{_datadir}. It's the only file in the datadir. Please remove it from the
datadir, and remove datadir altogether, since it seems surplus.
[ankur@ankur darkclient-0.1]$ rpm -qpl
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/darkclient-0.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
/etc/darkclient.conf
/usr/bin/darkclient
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/darkclient-0.1-py2.7.egg-info
/usr/share/darkclient
/usr/share/darkclient/README
/usr/share/doc/darkclient-0.1
/usr/share/doc/darkclient-0.1/README
[ankur@ankur darkclient-0.1]$
Minor fixes. I'll approve the package once these are fixed. The blocker is the
important one, but you might as well fix the nitpicks while you're at it :)
Ankur
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809348] Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809348 --- Comment #4 from Kushal Das 2012-04-03 05:46:08 EDT --- Koji scratch build for F17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3959118 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809395] Review Request: jboss-as - JBoss Application Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809395 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juan.hernan...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández 2012-04-03 05:31:02 EDT --- I am glad to take this for 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 809348] Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809348 --- Comment #3 from Kushal Das 2012-04-03 05:29:55 EDT --- Updated spec and srpm Spec URL: http://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/darkclient.spec SRPM URL: http://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/darkclient-0.1-2.fc16.src.rpm This package will be build in EL6. The upstream release will have a LICENSE file from next release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809395] Review Request: jboss-as - JBoss Application Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809395 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||809398 Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG), 807017 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann 2012-04-03 05:19:51 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3959077 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807017] Review Request: ovirt-engine - Management server for Open Virtualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807017 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|800469 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807017] Review Request: ovirt-engine - Management server for Open Virtualization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807017 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||809395 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809395] New: Review Request: jboss-as - JBoss Application Server
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-as - JBoss Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809395 Summary: Review Request: jboss-as - JBoss Application Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-as/7.1.0-1/jboss-as.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-as/7.1.0-1/jboss-as-7.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: JBoss Application Server 7 is the latest release in a series of JBoss Application Server offerings. JBoss Application Server 7, is a fast, powerful, implementation of the Java Enterprise Edition 6 specification. The state-of-the-art architecture built on the Modular Service Container enables services on-demand when your application requires them. Notes for reviewer: 1. Please check the %files section very carefully 2. Included patches are only for removing from the build everything which is more than EE6 web-profile. 3. Systemd files will go upstream at some point. 4. Picky R and BR versioning is required because some of these packages relocated the jars and we're symlinking afterwards. This would break the build. I may remove the versioning later. 5. New version of AS 7 was released, but there is no time for upgrade before F17, it'll be done later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809348] Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809348 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha 2012-04-03 03:52:25 EDT --- Created attachment 574769 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=574769 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 809348] Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809348
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha 2012-04-03 03:51:51
EDT ---
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue
[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[?] Spec has consistant macro usage.
Please use either RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %(buildroot}, not both :)
[+] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[+] License
[+] License field in spec matches
[?] License file included in package
Since you are the upstream, can you please include a license file before adding
this package to the repos?
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[-] Sources match upstream md5sum:
Could not check, Source0 is not address of upstream tarball. If possible,
please add a "release" page and host the tarballs there.
[+] Package needs ExcludeArch
[?] BuildRequires correct
BRs missing completely. Please add python{2,3}-devel and python-setuptools as
BRs.
The package will not build without the BRs: ** BLOCKER **
[-] Spec handles locales/find_lang
[-] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
[+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
[+] Package has a correct %clean section.
[+] Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}[-]%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[-] Doc subpackage needed/used.
[+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
[-] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
[-] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
[-] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
[-] .so files in -devel subpackage.
[-] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[-] .la files are removed.
[-] Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
[?] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
Will not build due to insufficient BRs
** BLOCKER **
[+] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
[+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[+] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[-] No rpmlint output.
[-] final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm [-]qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)
SHOULD Items:
[?] Should build in mock.
[-] Should build on all supported archs
[?] Should function as described.
Not checked
[-] Should have sane scriptlets.
[-] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
[+] Should have dist tag
[+] Should package latest version
[-] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
[?] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[?] License file included in package
[?] BuildRequires correct
[?] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
[?] Should build in mock.
The package builds even without BRs somehow, but that's wrong. Please correct
the issues outlined above.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3958954
I'm assuming this package will be built for el too, therefore the the python
packaging macros, and the buildroot etc are all right to include.
If you do not intend to build the package for el etc, please get rid of the
surplus bits: buildroot definition, python packaging macros, clean section,
defattr
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809348] Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809348 Ankur Sinha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809348] New: Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809348 Summary: Review Request: darkclient - A command line tool for the darkroom service Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kushal...@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://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/darkclient.spec SRPM URL: http://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/darkclient-0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: A command line tool for the darkroom service. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760153] Review Request: xcb-util-wm - Client and window-manager helper library on top of libxcb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760153 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny 2012-04-03 03:14:04 EDT --- Thanks for the review spot! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xcb-util-wm Short Description: Client and window-manager helper library on top of libxcb Owners: thm Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
