[Bug 783825] Review Request: suil - A lightweight C library for loading and wrapping LV2 plugin UIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783825 --- Comment #26 from Brendan Jones 2012-04-07 00:24:13 EDT --- OK, I've merged the two sub-packages back into the main package and manually removed Gtk and Qt requires from the suil package. These libraries should be required by the plugin and need not be pulled in here. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/suil-0.4.4-6.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/suil.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799651] Review Request: smb4k - The SMB/CIFS Share Browser for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799651 --- Comment #27 from Sergio Monteiro Basto 2012-04-06 20:56:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > Unretired, but sergiomb is not a sponsored Packager member in FAS. Jon Ciesla , I got 3 problems $ fedpkg build Building smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc18 for rawhide Created task: 3969955 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3969955 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 3969955 build (rawhide, /smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): open (x86-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 3969956 buildSRPMFromSCM (/smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): free 3969956 buildSRPMFromSCM (/smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): free -> open (x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 3969956 buildSRPMFromSCM (/smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): open (x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 3969955 build (rawhide, /smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): open (x86-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: package smb4k is blocked for tag f18 0 free 0 open 1 done 1 failed fedpkg switch-branch f17 Could not execute switch_branch: Unknown remote branch f17 fedpkg switch-branch f16 Could not execute switch_branch: Unknown remote branch f16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810336] Review Request: ga - Global Arrays Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-04-06 20:24:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > So I noticed there were several versions of atlas with different instruction > sets built with each. Should I just depend on atlas or pick the sse3 variant? > or is it my choice? You BuildRequires: atlas-devel, and rpm will automatically pick up any relevant requires since the libraries will be linked in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760155] Review Request: xcb-util-image - Port of Xlib's XImage and XShmImage functions 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=760155 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-06 19:23:43 EDT --- xcb-util-image-0.3.8-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809748] Review Request: xz-java - Java implementation of XZ data compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809748 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-06 19:24:06 EDT --- xz-java-1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-06 19:23:52 EDT --- xcb-util-wm-0.3.8-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 773011] Review Request: api-sanity-checker - An automatic generator of basic unit tests for a shared C/C++ library.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773011 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||api-sanity-checker-1.12.9-3 ||.fc16 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-04-06 17:31:39 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-06 17:31:39 EDT --- api-sanity-checker-1.12.9-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665733] Review Request: Coin3 - High-level 3D visualization library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665733 --- Comment #13 from Richard Shaw 2012-04-06 17:20:11 EDT --- Ralf, Can I assume that you're ignoring me since you're obviously active on the mailing list but have not responded on this review request in over 4 months? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810336] Review Request: ga - Global Arrays Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336 --- Comment #5 from David Brown 2012-04-06 17:13:08 EDT --- I've updated the ga.spec and src rpm respectively. Please redownload from the urls in the original ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560 --- Comment #26 from Todd Zullinger 2012-04-06 16:29:22 EDT --- Actually, the license tag simply never got adjusted after the gem2spec was run initially. The ruby-shadow package is Public Domain and always has been. As this code is copied from that with no changes to any of the licensing, I'm going to adjust the license tag here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560 --- Comment #25 from Todd Zullinger 2012-04-06 16:18:48 EDT --- Bohuslav, Thanks. I'll update to 2.1.3 now and will mail upstream about the license. Where can I find more details about gem_extdir? I'd like to read more about that so I can properly document and add the right bits so the spec file works cleanly across all Fedora and EPEL releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806093] Review Request: glade - User Interface Designer for GTK+ and GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806093
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember 2012-04-06 16:00:34
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> %check
> desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/glade.desktop
>
> I think this should be part of the regular %install section - do we even run
> %check by default on builds ?
Yes, %check is run by default for all builds, right after %install. I don't
think there's any practical difference whether to put this at the end of
%install or in %check.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
> %{_datadir}/gnome/help/glade/
> %{_datadir}/omf/glade/
>
> If you pass --with-gnome to %find_lang, it should pick these up (and properly
> decorate them with %lang)
Fixed.
> %files libs
> %doc COPYING*
>
> I think it would be nice to ship COPYING in the main package as well.
The licensing guidelines say that it's OK to put the license files in just one
subpackage, provided that all other subpackages depend on the one that has
license files.
But sure, I guess it doesn't hurt to have multiple copies. Added COPYING* to
the main package as well.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/glade.spec
SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/glade-3.12.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
* Fri Apr 06 2012 Kalev Lember - 3.12.0-2
- Review fixes (#806093)
- Use find_lang --with-gnome for including help files
- Include license files also in the main package in addition to -libs
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 803089] Review Request: whenjobs - Replacement for cron with dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803089 --- Comment #19 from Richard W.M. Jones 2012-04-06 15:27:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > The %global opt is still unused in the spec, so if the makefile work without > it, maybe it should be removed ? %opt is used in the spec. On x86/x86-64 it would always be set to 1, because ocamlopt is always available. However on some weird secondary architectures (I think s/390x is the only one) where there is no native compiler backend, ocamlopt wouldn't exist so %opt would be 0. (In reply to comment #18) > And yes, a new rpm would help me to make sure I can test the build and other > stuff correctly. This is the package I've been using successfully for a few weeks: Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/whenjobs/whenjobs.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/whenjobs/whenjobs-0.7.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806093] Review Request: glade - User Interface Designer for GTK+ and GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806093
Matthias Clasen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcla...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Clasen 2012-04-06 15:22:26
EDT ---
Preliminary comments:
%check
desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/glade.desktop
I think this should be part of the regular %install section - do we even run
%check by default on builds ?
%{_datadir}/gnome/help/glade/
%{_datadir}/omf/glade/
If you pass --with-gnome to %find_lang, it should pick these up (and properly
decorate them with %lang)
%files libs
%doc COPYING*
I think it would be nice to ship COPYING in the main package as well.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810048] Review Request: netbeans-l10n - Internationalization support for NetBeans IDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810048 Felix Kaechele changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fe...@fetzig.org --- Comment #1 from Felix Kaechele 2012-04-06 15:25:53 EDT --- I'm afraid this package can't go in unless a new maintainer for NetBeans is found. As of now the NetBeans has been retired. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 803089] Review Request: whenjobs - Replacement for cron with dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803089 --- Comment #18 from Michael Scherer 2012-04-06 15:12:24 EDT --- And yes, a new rpm would help me to make sure I can test the build and other stuff correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 651591] Review Request: partiwm - partitioning window manager and related tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651591 --- Comment #27 from Joel 2012-04-06 15:08:18 EDT --- Created attachment 575816 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=575816 Updated SPEC file * Fri Apr 06 2012 Joel Young 0.1.0.1-3 - update to released version 0.1.0.1 - added requires for xorg-x11-server-Xvfb - renamed package to xpra rather than partwm Any progress on continuing the review for this project? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 803089] Review Request: whenjobs - Replacement for cron with dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803089 --- Comment #17 from Michael Scherer 2012-04-06 15:04:13 EDT --- The %global opt is still unused in the spec, so if the makefile work without it, maybe it should be removed ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810059] opencl-utils - Useful OpenCL tools and utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810059
--- Comment #11 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-06 15:05:10
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 575645 [details]
> ALternative Makefile, clean-up, respects CFLAGS.
I dropped patch0 because it was giving compiling errors, though I still need to
test if this causes adverse effects in functionality. As for the new makefile,
though it works fairly well but I had to add -fPIC to the CFLAGS make it
compile.
The issue is that I'm now getting the ldconfig error again:
>opencl-utils-CLRun.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libclrun.so.0.16
my method of symlinking is still the same as in comment#7, which makes me think
that the method to fix it originally may not be ideal. Not sure, I may have to
do some more research into this.
This is a direct copy of from halfway through the %install section until right
before the changelogs:
>#install the library and the links
>install -p -D -m 0755 src/clrun/libclrun.so
>%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libclrun.so.%{version}.%{svnversion}
>cd %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
>ln -sf libclrun.so.%{version}.%{svnversion} libclrun.so.%{version}
>ln -sf libclrun.so.%{version}.%{svnversion} libclrun.so
>
>%files CLRun
>%{_libdir}/*.so.*
>
>%files devel
>%{_includedir}/%{name}/include/CL
>
>%files CLRun-devel
>%{_includedir}/%{name}/clrun/
>%{_includedir}/%{name}/include/clrun.h
>%{_datadir}/%{name}/examples
>%{_libdir}/*.so
>
>%post CLRun -p /sbin/ldconfig
>
>%postun CLRun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Did I miss something?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798738] Review request: mysqlenum - is an automatic blind SQL injection tool.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798738 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #22 from Michael Scherer 2012-04-06 14:51:48 EDT --- Hi, sorry to not have answered earlier, was busy IRL. I looked at the license side, and there is a base64.c base64.h files under BSD license with : * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *software must display the following acknowledgment: *"This product includes software developed by the Apache Group *for use in the Apache HTTP server project (http://www.apache.org/)." Not sure if that's suitable for Fedora, so I place this as blocked by 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 810028] Review Request: perl-WWW-Shorten - Interface to URL shortening sites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810028 Julian C. Dunn changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Julian C. Dunn 2012-04-06 13:07:54 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-WWW-Shorten Short Description: Interface to URL shortening sites Owners: jdunn Branches: f15 f16 f17 InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225734] Merge Review: esound
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225734 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-06 11:31:14 EDT --- Moving the docs doesn't seem to be needed, or work, in rawhide. -- 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 810336] Review Request: ga - Global Arrays Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336 --- Comment #4 from David Brown 2012-04-06 11:55:18 EDT --- Also, I had a question about the build process. Currently the GA build for OpenMPI requires an infiniband network, since the communication layer under GA doesn't have the concept of dynamically linking in the communication layer or building all possible communication layers and dynamically choosing one at runtime. Also, the kernel.shmmax sysctl value needs to change in order for the tests to run successfully to completion. So I have some doubts as to running the make check for both mpich2 and openmpi working consistently on the build systems fedora uses. Thoughts? I could at runtime in the spec determine if you have an infiniband stack and then run the openmpi tests. I could do the same for the shmmax value. Or should I just chuck the make checks to decomplicate the spec? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810059] opencl-utils - Useful OpenCL tools and utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810059
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-06 11:34:43
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Basically, its all about the Makefile. Although it's extremely small, it's
> broken: the dependencies are wrong, make clean is incomplete, it does not
> respect CFLAGS.
>
> I attach a new Makefile. It's so small that a diff makes no sense. It can be
> used something like this:
>
> env CFLAGS="%{optflags} -Wl,-soname=libcrun.so.%{version}" make
>
> Doing so, the debuginfo thing should be solver as well as the missing
> %{optflags}
>
> I'm still worried about the packages. Basically, this is just a library and as
> such the "standard procedure" would be:
>
> Base package: opencl-utils: *.so.*, %doc e. g. the example files.
> Devel package: the header files
> debug packagge.
>
> I just don't see why this should be different. Why package the complete
> sources? Why have a separate package for for clrun? In particular, packaging
> sources in the include directory is plain wrong IMHO. If they need to be
> packaged (why) they should live somewhere else e. g. in
> /usr/share/opencl-utils
> or just as %doc.
I guess the non header files can be removed now that I don't need them anymore,
I can agree in some sense to remove them.
As for the separate package for clrun, I'm only matching upstream's naming
scheme. Sure it may not make sense but there doesn't seem to be any guideline
speaking against it, and if anything the guidelines encourages to be as close
to upstream as possible.
The organization seems to make sense:
CLRUN - just the library
CLRUN-devel - the devel files for CLRUN
devel - The files not specific to CLRUN
The main point is that if anyone decides to contribute another library to this
package it should be fairly easy without having to move everything around.
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 575645 [details]
> ALternative Makefile, clean-up, respects CFLAGS.
Thanks a lot! I'll give it a shot :)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728302] Review Request: pjproject - Libraries written in C language for building embedded/non-embedded VoIP 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=728302 Karel Volný changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kvo...@redhat.com --- Comment #29 from Karel Volný 2012-04-06 11:22:12 EDT --- ping? I just came across a recommendation for sflphone, and I see its inclusion in Fedora is blocked by this review request, is there any progress? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225734] Merge Review: esound
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225734 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com, ||mcla...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-06 11:24:38 EDT --- Adding mclasen who's done the most recent changes. - rpmlint checks return: Errors about egrep, had to move the docs to the right place, and some unescaped macros in the comments. I have fixes for these ready. esound.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US audiofile -> audiophile, audio file, audio-file The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. esound-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/esound-0.2.41/getopt.h esound-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/esound-libs-0.2.41/COPYING.LIB 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. File bugs upstream if you like. esound-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libesddsp.so.0.2.39 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. Fix if possible. esound-libs.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libesddsp.so.0.2.39 ['/usr/lib64'] And many more. The binary or shared library defines `RPATH'. Usually this is a bad thing because it hardcodes the path to search libraries and so makes it difficult to move libraries around. Most likely you will find a Makefile with a line like: gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath. Also, sometimes configure scripts provide a --disable-rpath flag to avoid this. Fix. The --disable-rpath flag at configure doesn't fix this. esound-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Commandline -> Command line, Command-line, Commandment The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. esound-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commandline -> command line, command-line, commandment The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. - 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) . . .once I moved the docs. - 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 Other than what's in rpmlint it looks good. I'll commit the simple fixes soon unless you object. -- 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 810336] Review Request: ga - Global Arrays Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336 --- Comment #3 from David Brown 2012-04-06 11:23:07 EDT --- So I noticed there were several versions of atlas with different instruction sets built with each. Should I just depend on atlas or pick the sse3 variant? or is it my choice? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810336] Review Request: ga - Global Arrays Toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-04-06 11:06:20
EDT ---
If you need BLAS or LAPACK, please use ATLAS instead of the reference versions,
since it's way faster.
**
--bindir=%{_libdir}/$MPI_COMPILER_NAME/bin
should read
--bindir=$MPI_BIN
and the same for MPI_LIB and MPI_INCLUDE.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809748] Review Request: xz-java - Java implementation of XZ data compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809748 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-06 10:40:02 EDT --- xz-java-1.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xz-java-1.0-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225722] Merge Review: ElectricFence
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225722 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-06 10:17:03 EDT --- Good: - rpmlint checks return: ElectricFence.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ElectricFence-2.2.2.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. I read the spec comments, where does this live now? ElectricFence.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US malloc -> mallow The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. ElectricFence.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libefence.so.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. Should be fixed if possible. ElectricFence.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libefence.a 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. ElectricFence.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libefence.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. These should normally go in -static and -devel, but I think in this case they don't need to. ElectricFence.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ElectricFence-2.2.2/COPYING 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. File bug upstream if you like. ElectricFence.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ef Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 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 Impossible to determine. - 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 So it's mostly just upstream location and shared lib calls exit. -- 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 810376] Review Request: pypng - Python PNG encoder/decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810376
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember 2012-04-06 10:20:47
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I have a preference for "pypng", because people tend to call it that
Fair enough.
The main issue I see with this package is that its licensing is unclear.
code/png.py appears to be MIT-licensed, but the rest of the code files don't
have any licensing information. There's also no readme to clear this up.
Could you ask upstream to clarify licensing and add license headers to code
files?
Also some comments about the spec file:
RPM doesn't have automatic python dep extraction, so this package will have to
manually specify Requires for other python modules it uses. numpy at least is
missing from Requires, perhaps something else as well.
> %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
> distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
python_sitelib is automatically defined by rpm macros in all supported Fedora
releases so no need to define it in the spec file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
> Source0: http://pypng.googlecode.com/files/pypng-0.0.12.tar.gz
Use the %{version} macro here. With this, when updating to a new upstream
release, you'll only need to update the Version: tag and the source URL won't
need updating each time.
> %build
> # Remove CFLAGS=... for noarch packages (unneeded)
> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{__python} setup.py build
This _is_ a noarch package, so CFLAGS aren't needed here.
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
The rm -rf isn't needed with the version of rpmbuild in supported Fedora
releases.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809748] Review Request: xz-java - Java implementation of XZ data compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809748 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 809748] Review Request: xz-java - Java implementation of XZ data compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809748 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-06 10:16:45 EDT --- xz-java-1.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xz-java-1.0-2.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 810376] Review Request: pypng - Python PNG encoder/decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810376 --- Comment #2 from Matthew Miller 2012-04-06 09:31:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Completely up to you whether to call this 'pypng' or 'python-png', just > pointing out the alternative. Thanks. I have a preference for "pypng", because people tend to call it that; e.g.: http://ianwitham.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/pypng-and-the-gimp/ http://www.developer.nokia.com/Community/Discussion/showthread.php?188977-pypng-and-graphics.Image http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7863932/horizontal-flip-of-image-on-python-with-pypng http://blog.zillabyte.com/hue-histograms/ and so if people are looking to see if there's a Fedora package, that's probably the first thing they'll look for. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225666] Merge Review: crypto-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225666
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 2012-04-06 09:06:02 EDT
---
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have to use
a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
Fix.
crypto-utils.spec:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl Makefile.PL
PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" INSTALLDIRS=vendor
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may
break short circuit builds.
Fix.
crypto-utils.spec:377: W: macro-in-%changelog %files
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'.
crypto-utils.spec:378: W: macro-in-%changelog %post
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'.
Trival to fix.
crypto-utils.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: crypto-rand-1.3.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
crypto-utils.src: W: no-url-tag
The URL tag is missing.
I see this has no real upstream, if this is something we originate it needs a
home on fedorahosted.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission copying 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission pemutil.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission certext.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission secutil.h 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission keyutil.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission SECerrs.h 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission keyutil.h 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission secutil.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
Easy fixes.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
Says MIT and GPLv2+, should be MIT and GPLv2+ and MPLv1.0
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
Impossible to determine.
- 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
I realize this package is ancient, but at least the few fixes are easy. 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 799651] Review Request: smb4k - The SMB/CIFS Share Browser for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799651 --- Comment #26 from Kevin Kofler 2012-04-06 08:53:30 EDT --- You need a sponsor to join the packager group, but part of the job of the sponsor is to do your first review, and to sponsor you only after that review was successful. So FE-NEEDSPONSOR should not be removed before the review is actually complete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799651] Review Request: smb4k - The SMB/CIFS Share Browser for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799651 --- Comment #25 from Sergio Monteiro Basto 2012-04-06 08:40:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) > Oh, that may explain why FE-NEEDSPONSOR was added (briefly, then removed for > some reason). I block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, after I read the historic in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=799651, and saw that first thing on this bug was block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, so I though that I made a mistake (make same block for the second time) so remove block FE-NEEDSPONSOR . I don't understood, Should I need two SPONSORS (one for review and other) ? but I have to go now ... > I'll kick the sponsor piece now. > > OK, I think you can go into pkgdb, and take the pkg yourself now, > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/smb4k > > (login, and click "take ownership" button) Thanks, I am proud to become a member of fedora packagers. I will do the rest soon. 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 225902] Merge Review: intltool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225902 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2012-04-06 08:22:58 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-06 08:22:58 EDT --- Done, 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 799651] Review Request: smb4k - The SMB/CIFS Share Browser for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799651 --- Comment #24 from Rex Dieter 2012-04-06 08:22:03 EDT --- Oh, that may explain why FE-NEEDSPONSOR was added (briefly, then removed for some reason). I'll kick the sponsor piece now. OK, I think you can go into pkgdb, and take the pkg yourself now, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/smb4k (login, and click "take ownership" button) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799651] Review Request: smb4k - The SMB/CIFS Share Browser for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799651 --- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-06 08:14:05 EDT --- Unretired, but sergiomb is not a sponsored Packager member in FAS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809748] Review Request: xz-java - Java implementation of XZ data compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809748 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-06 08:12:50 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 810376] Review Request: pypng - Python PNG encoder/decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810376 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kalevlem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember 2012-04-06 08:02:37 EDT --- Taking for review. Before going any further, I have a question about the naming of this package. Is there a chance that this will support Python 3 in the future? Because if it is going to, it might make sense to call this 'python-png', making it possible to consistently call the Python 3 version 'python3-png', whenever the Python 3 version becomes supported. Completely up to you whether to call this 'pypng' or 'python-png', just pointing out the alternative. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804178] Review Request: swt-chart - A light weight charting 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=804178 Mikolaj Izdebski 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 809614] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809614 --- Comment #3 from adev 2012-04-06 06:43:08 EDT --- Update in order to correct a compilation problem with the rawhide : 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 I add the rpmlint content too : rpmlint output : gfal2-core.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgfal2.so.2.0.0 -> needed by the some parts with nested functions. gfal2-plugin-rfio.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dpm-libs -> libdpm is loaded dynamically by design, the explicit dependencie is required. 13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809748] Review Request: xz-java - Java implementation of XZ data compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809748 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-04-06 05:11:00 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xz-java Short Description: Java implementation of XZ data compression Owners: mizdebsk Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: java-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560 --- Comment #24 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-04-06 05:06:43 EDT --- Ah sorry, I take this back. Will have to properly look what rpmlint is telling me next time... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560 --- Comment #23 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-06 04:57:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) > - Please remove zero-length files, as reported by rpmlint: > rubygem-ruby-shadow-doc.noarch: E: zero-length > /usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-shadow-2.1.2/rdoc/created.rid > rubygem-ruby-shadow-doc.noarch: E: zero-length > /usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-shadow-2.1.2/ri/created.rid Slavek, this is not good idea IMO, it should be considered as a false positive. Do you know what these files are for? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 766166] Review Request: cross-gcc - Multiple cross-build gcc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766166 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #12 from Dan Horák 2012-04-06 04:51:33 EDT --- David, could you build sh-linux-gnu tools instead of (or in addition to) the sh4-linux-gnu one? It seems that the sh4 gcc is able to generate only sh4 code, while the sh one would generate code for whole SH family. And the reason I'm asking is that sh-linux-gnu would be able to build carl9170 wifi firmware (uses sh2 cpu, http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/carl9170) from sources and I've offered a help to Josh Boyer and John Linville. John even submitted sh-elf toolchain for review, but it seems redundant, because I'm able to compile the firmware successfully with sh4-linux-gnu, it won't work obviously due the different CPU. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #22 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-04-06
04:10:42 EDT ---
Ok, here are my comments:
- Are you sure about the license? The readme file says "License: Free for any
use with your own risk!". You should probably ask the author what exactly he
means by that (I'm guessing public domain, but we must clarify this).
- In F17 and above, the *.so files have to live under %{gem_extdir}, because
they are platform dependent and %{gem_instdir} points to /usr/share/gems, which
has to contain only platform independent code (also, rpmlint complains about
this).
- %{gem_instdir}/README* should be marked as %doc
- Consider updating to the latest upstream version (2.1.3).
- Please remove zero-length files, as reported by rpmlint:
rubygem-ruby-shadow-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-shadow-2.1.2/rdoc/created.rid
rubygem-ruby-shadow-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-shadow-2.1.2/ri/created.rid
Please fix these issues and then the package can be 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 810059] opencl-utils - Useful OpenCL tools and utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810059 --- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-06 03:56:00 EDT --- Created attachment 575645 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=575645 ALternative Makefile, clean-up, respects CFLAGS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810059] opencl-utils - Useful OpenCL tools and utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810059
--- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-06 03:54:05 EDT
---
Basically, its all about the Makefile. Although it's extremely small, it's
broken: the dependencies are wrong, make clean is incomplete, it does not
respect CFLAGS.
I attach a new Makefile. It's so small that a diff makes no sense. It can be
used something like this:
env CFLAGS="%{optflags} -Wl,-soname=libcrun.so.%{version}" make
Doing so, the debuginfo thing should be solver as well as the missing
%{optflags}
I'm still worried about the packages. Basically, this is just a library and as
such the "standard procedure" would be:
Base package: opencl-utils: *.so.*, %doc e. g. the example files.
Devel package: the header files
debug packagge.
I just don't see why this should be different. Why package the complete
sources? Why have a separate package for for clrun? In particular, packaging
sources in the include directory is plain wrong IMHO. If they need to be
packaged (why) they should live somewhere else e. g. in /usr/share/opencl-utils
or just as %doc.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810028] Review Request: perl-WWW-Shorten - Interface to URL shortening sites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810028 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata 2012-04-06 03:53:40 EDT --- Perfect, approving. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #12 from Stanislav Petr 2012-04-06 03:39:51 EDT --- I have merged changes, but we found some problems with knot stability (we are testing the knot on one of our DNS server - cca 40k zones). I will try to release the new spec this weekend with all fixies. Thank you for your spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787977] Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787977 --- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2012-04-06 03:20:05 EDT --- Hi Shakthi, "The" in common_summary can be removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787977] Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787977
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2012-04-06
03:18:59 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src.rpm ghc-data-reify-devel-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
../ghc-data-reify.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD 3 clause.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
25f0c927f53bc068da8a261d78b771fd data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
d5sum ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src/data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
25f0c927f53bc068da8a261d78b771fd
ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src/data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Tested with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Tested with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Tested with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-data-reify
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(data-reify-0.6) = 21f1f824f31e07d5e843d78f7732664c is needed by
(installed) ghc-data-reify-devel-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-data-reify = 0.6-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-data-reify-devel-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
Checked with rpmquery --list and rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Loaded Data.Reify.Graph into ghci.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
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
[Bug 787977] Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787977 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
