[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 --- Comment #111 from Hongli Lai 2012-04-13 02:55:18 EDT --- Good to hear that things have been solved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807328] Review Request: drupal6-og - Organic Group Module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807328 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-13 02:10:26 EDT --- drupal6-og-2.2-4.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 810926] Review Request: rubygem-qpid - Ruby bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810926
--- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-13 01:25:56 EDT
---
Thank you.
Another note. You should be able to remove the %{gemdir} and %{geminstir} macro
definitions if you follow the new packaging guidelines [1] and use
rubygems-devel package, which provide these macros (better to say the
"underscore" alternatives). There are also helpful macros you can use in the
%file section, etc.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812099] Review Request: mysql-utilities - MySQL 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=812099 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet 2012-04-13 01:02:13 EDT --- > Reported to upstream. Upstream answer (Chuck Bell): I've created BUG#13956819 for these issues. I will prepare a patch and get it approved in the next couple of days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796465] Review Request: exif - Utility to show EXIF information hidden in JPEG files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796465
Mathieu Bridon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon 2012-04-13
00:31:12 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[-]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint exif-debuginfo-0.6.20-2.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint exif-0.6.20-2.fc18.src.rpm
exif.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C EXIF
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint exif-0.6.20-2.fc18.i686.rpm
exif.i686: W: name-repeated-in-summary C EXIF
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mathieu/Workspace/reviews/exif/exif-0.6.20.tar.bz2 :
MD5SUM this package : 4d88291883506d4ee52d1eec9ed5f42a
MD5SUM upstream package : 4d88291883506d4ee52d1eec9ed5f42a
[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 Systemd unit file if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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
[Bug 663023] Review Request: anjuta-extras - Extras plugins for anjuta
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663023 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember 2012-04-12 20:23:56 EDT --- Hi, If you are still interested in anjuta-extras, I'd be happy to review it. Can you update it to the latest 3.4.0 release, please? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812167] 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=812167 Zeena changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-04-12 20:03:42 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810928] Review Request: sticky-notes - Sticky notes is a free and open source paste-bin application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810928 --- Comment #10 from Athmane Madjoudj 2012-04-12 20:00:42 EDT --- Created attachment 577191 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=577191 Patch that fixes some SQL Injections issues. Merge request updated to include this patch: https://gitorious.org/sticky-notes/sticky-notes/merge_requests/2 I'm still testing, I'll update the merge request and this bugreport when I find new issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812167] 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=812167 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: zalju...@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: SRPM URL: Description: Fedora Account System Username: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 470696] Review Request: rubygem-passenger - Passenger Ruby on Rails deployment system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470696 Brett Lentz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brett.le...@gmail.com --- Comment #110 from Brett Lentz 2012-04-12 19:51:56 EDT --- Okay, so... After the Boost community has raised some valid concerns about certain portions of the changes in Passenger's fork, I've applied for a bundling exception with the FPC. The bundling exception was GRANTED, conditional that I would be the package's maintainer. (See: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/160 ) With that, it appears that we're finally clear to resume the package review. I will be posting a new spec and srpm sometime in the next few days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010 --- Comment #9 from David Brown 2012-04-12 18:16:13 EDT --- I was also able to get this to build on el5 and el6 as well. http://dmlb2000.homelinux.org/packages/genders-1.18-3.el5.centos.src.rpm http://dmlb2000.homelinux.org/packages/genders-1.18-3.el6.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 806665] Review Request: mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806665 Pablo Iranzo Gómez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pablo.ira...@redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Pablo Iranzo Gómez 2012-04-12 17:57:25 EDT --- Is it expected to enter epel (el4,5,6) or a new bug should be filled? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010 --- Comment #8 from David Brown 2012-04-12 17:46:04 EDT --- I've updated the genders.spec from the original link and added the groups for epel 5/6 builds. http://dmlb2000.homelinux.org/packages/genders-1.18-3.fc18.src.rpm And I'll have to submit more packages of better quality then ;). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800526] Review Request: seahorse-sharing - Sharing of PGP public keys via DNS-SD and HKP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800526 --- Comment #17 from Kalev Lember 2012-04-12 17:33:18 EDT --- Added the self-obsoletes in seahorse-3.4.0-2.fc17: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=seahorse.git;a=commit;h=7b450ab5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 452427] Review Request: awesome - Extremely fast, small, dynamic and awesome floating and tiling window manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452427 --- Comment #132 from Thomas Moschny 2012-04-12 16:43:37 EDT --- Hi Jim, (In reply to comment #131) > Hi Thomas, do you have anything that works with F17? The repo has been updated, can you give it a try? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737401] Review Request: saga - Geographic information system with an API for processing geodata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737401 --- Comment #14 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-04-12 16:43:46 EDT --- I already managed to build a working SAGA with all system-wide libraries. I'll now try to get those changes upstream and I'll have a look at the possible fftw issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737401] Review Request: saga - Geographic information system with an API for processing geodata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737401 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||812137 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812137] Review Request: polyclipping - Polygon clipping 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=812137 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||737401 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812137] New: Review Request: polyclipping - Polygon clipping 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: polyclipping - Polygon clipping library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812137 Summary: Review Request: polyclipping - Polygon clipping library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: volke...@gmx.at QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/polyclipping.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/polyclipping-4.7.6-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This library primarily performs the boolean clipping operations - intersection, union, difference & xor - on 2D polygons. It also performs polygon offsetting. The library handles complex (self-intersecting) polygons, polygons with holes and polygons with overlapping co-linear edges. Input polygons for clipping can use EvenOdd, NonZero, Positive and Negative filling modes. The clipping code is based on the Vatti clipping algorithm, and outperforms other clipping libraries. rpmlint: [makerpm@lenovo-muw polyclipping]$ rpmlint /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/polyclipping-4.7.6-1.fc16.src.rpm /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/polyclipping-4.7.6-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/polyclipping-devel-4.7.6-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/polyclipping-debuginfo-4.7.6-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm polyclipping.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US boolean -> Boolean, boo lean, boo-lean polyclipping.src: W: file-size-mismatch clipper_ver4.7.6.zip = 1462271, http://downloads.sourceforge.net/polyclipping/clipper_ver4.7.6.zip = 1462266 polyclipping.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US boolean -> Boolean, boo lean, boo-lean polyclipping-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. I assume the filesize mismatch occured, when the developer included the fix for the paths in the CMake file. I will, of course, use this file for the final package, but I have limited access to the Internet right now. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3986307 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132 --- Comment #2 from Andy Grover 2012-04-12 16:25:38 EDT --- I'm planning on using this module for a service I'm working on that will allow remote configuration of a storage appliance. I'm the upstream maintainer (but not original author) for this module so I'm very open to collaboration -- I just need the functionality from Python :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132 Bill Nottingham changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcantr...@redhat.com, ||dleh...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham 2012-04-12 16:19:55 EDT --- CC'ing authors of alternative python implementations that allow creation/use/modification of LVM to see if people want to share code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812132] New: Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132 Summary: Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: agro...@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://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/python-lvm.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/python-lvm-1.0-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Python module to allow the creation and use of LVM logical volumes, physical volumes, and volume groups. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812121] New: Review Request: python-kmod - Load, unload & list kernel modules from Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-kmod - Load, unload & list kernel modules from Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812121 Summary: Review Request: python-kmod - Load, unload & list kernel modules from Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: agro...@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://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/python-kmod.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/python-kmod-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Python module to allow listing, loading, and unloading Linux kernel modules, using libkmod. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772406] Review Request: cpulimit - CPU Usage Limiter for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772406 --- Comment #13 from Christos Triantafyllidis 2012-04-12 14:31:14 EDT --- Still now reply from vendor. Pinged him again. Christos -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810926] Review Request: rubygem-qpid - Ruby bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810926
--- Comment #8 from Darryl L. Pierce 2012-04-12 14:28:36
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Hi Darryl,
>
> You should follow the rename guidelines [1] IMO. So the "Provides: ruby-qpid"
> should be accompanied by "Obsoletes" directive.
>
> So for F16, it should look like:
>
> Provides: ruby-qpid = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes: ruby-qpid < 0.8-2
>
> Btw since the package needs to go into Rawhide first, it would be nice if you
> could prepare the .spec file for Rawhide.
>
>
> [1]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
Changes are made per your recommendation:
Updates SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-qpid.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-qpid-0.16.0-3.fc18.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 812099] New: Review Request: mysql-utilities - MySQL Utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mysql-utilities - MySQL Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812099 Summary: Review Request: mysql-utilities - MySQL Utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fed...@famillecollet.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/mysql-utilities/mysql-utilities.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/mysql-utilities-1.0.5-1.remi.src.rpm Description: The MySQL Utilities is a set of easy-to-use scripts intended to make working with servers easier. It is part of the MySQL Workbench. -- About the rpmlint output incorrect-fsf-address: Reported to upstream (direct email to the maintainer) non-executable-script: this are not script (but libraries), so the shebang is simply unused. Reported to upstream. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3986032 The mysql-utilities is already in the repository, but as a sub-package of mysql-workbench. When approved, I will remove this sub-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 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 --- Comment #16 from Juan Hernández 2012-04-12 12:55:38 EDT --- Fixed. The updated spec and source package are available here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine/3.0.0.0001-11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807331] Review Request: drupal6-addthis - AddThis module for Drupal6.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807331 --- Comment #5 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-12 12:52:03 EDT --- one more try. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-addthis.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-addthis-3.0-6.beta2.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 807331] Review Request: drupal6-addthis - AddThis module for Drupal6.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807331 Brett Lentz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Brett Lentz 2012-04-12 12:48:03 EDT --- $ rpmlint /NotBackedUp/blentz/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-addthis-3.0-5.beta2.fc16.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Package approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810928] Review Request: sticky-notes - Sticky notes is a free and open source paste-bin application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810928 --- Comment #9 from Athmane Madjoudj 2012-04-12 12:32:59 EDT --- Created attachment 577135 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=577135 Fix some stored XSS (Cross-site Scripting) in 'paste_user' and 'paste_lang' parameters. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810928] Review Request: sticky-notes - Sticky notes is a free and open source paste-bin application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810928 --- Comment #8 from Athmane Madjoudj 2012-04-12 12:31:55 EDT --- Merge request: https://gitorious.org/sticky-notes/sticky-notes/merge_requests/2 Patch: see attached file This patch will fix some _stored_ XSS (Cross-site Scripting) in 'paste_user' and 'paste_lang' parameters. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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
--- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones 2012-04-12 12:18:48
EDT ---
I'm pretty sure the right way is:
> Version: %{upstream_version}.%{upstream_release}
> Release: 10.%{?dist}
following the rule I quoted earlier.
I will do a formal review shortly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812059] New: Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot - jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot - jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812059 Summary: Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot - jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rb...@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://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jqplugins-flot.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jqplugins-flot-2.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: toscawidgets2 (tw2) aims to be a practical and useful widgets framework that helps people build interactive websites with compelling features, faster and easier. Widgets are re-usable web components that can include a template, server-side code and JavaScripts/CSS resources. The library aims to be: flexible, reliable, documented, performant, and as simple as possible. flot is a pure Javascript plotting library for jQuery. It produces graphical plots of arbitrary datasets on-the-fly client-side. This module, tw2.jqplugins.flot, provides toscawidgets2 (tw2) access to flot widgets. This packages depends on the following two which are currently up for review: - python-tw2-excanvas - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811759 - python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812059] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot - jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812059 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||811759, 811739 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811739] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||812059 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811759] Review Request: python-tw2-excanvas - Excanvas for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811759 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||812059 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812058] New: Review Request: zipios++ - C++ library for reading and writing Zip files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: zipios++ - C++ library for reading and writing Zip files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812058 Summary: Review Request: zipios++ - C++ library for reading and writing Zip files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hobbes1...@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://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/zipios/zipios++.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/zipios/zipios++-0.1.5.9-5.fc16.src.rpm Description: Zipios++ is a java.util.zip-like C++ library for reading and writing Zip files. Access to individual entries is provided through standard C++ iostreams. A simple read-only virtual file system that mounts regular directories and zip files is also provided. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint SRPMS/zipios++-0.1.5.9-5.fc16.src.rpm zipios++.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pl.UTF-8 zipios++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Zipios -> Scipio zipios++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u til zipios++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iostreams -> mainstreams, streams 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. rpmlint output of installed package # rpmlint zipios++ zipios++.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pl.UTF-8 zipios++.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Zipios -> Scipio zipios++.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u til zipios++.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iostreams -> mainstreams, streams zipios++.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzipios.so.0.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1 zipios++.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzipios.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807331] Review Request: drupal6-addthis - AddThis module for Drupal6.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807331 --- Comment #3 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-12 12:11:28 EDT --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-addthis.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-addthis-3.0-5.beta2.fc16.src.rpm rpmlink does not throw errors any longer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812030] New: Review Request: python-tw2-jit - Javascript Infovis Toolkit (JIT) for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-tw2-jit - Javascript Infovis Toolkit (JIT) for ToscaWidgets2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812030 Summary: Review Request: python-tw2-jit - Javascript Infovis Toolkit (JIT) for ToscaWidgets2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rb...@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://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jit.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jit-2.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: toscawidgets2 (tw2) aims to be a practical and useful widgets framework that helps people build interactive websites with compelling features, faster and easier. Widgets are re-usable web components that can include a template, server-side code and JavaScripts/CSS resources. The library aims to be: flexible, reliable, documented, performant, and as simple as possible. The JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit (thejit) is a javascript library that provides web standard based tools to create interactive data visualizations for the Web. It is pretty, interactive, and fast. This module, tw2.jit, provides toscawidgets2 (tw2) widgets that render thejit data visualizations. This package depends on the following two packages currently up for review: - python-tw2-sqla - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811782 - python-tw2-jquery - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811732 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812030] Review Request: python-tw2-jit - Javascript Infovis Toolkit (JIT) for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812030 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||811732, 811782 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811782] Review Request: python-tw2-sqla - SQLAlchemy database layer for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811782 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||812030 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811732] Review Request: python-tw2-jquery - jQuery for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811732 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||812030 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772608] Review Request: ovirt-guest-agent - oVirt Guest Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772608
--- Comment #24 from Steven Dake 2012-04-12 10:48:36 EDT ---
1)
The BuildRoot is not necessary, Fedora figures this out automatically:
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
2)
This looks a little suspicious. Especially in FC17+ the gdm release shouldn't
be el6?
%define gdm_version gdm-2.30.4
%define gdm_release %{gdm_version}-14.el6
Are these still needed now that your using the gdm-devel package?
# The following requirements were copied from the gdm.spec file.
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcanberra-gtk)
BuildRequires: scrollkeeper >= 0:%{scrollkeeper_version}
BuildRequires: pango-devel >= 0:%{pango_version}
BuildRequires: gtk2-devel >= 0:%{gtk2_version}
BuildRequires: libglade2-devel >= 0:%{libglade2_version}
BuildRequires: libgnomeui-devel >= 0:%{libgnomeui_version}
BuildRequires: pam-devel >= 0:%{pam_version}
BuildRequires: fontconfig >= 0:%{fontconfig_version}
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils >= %{desktop_file_utils_version}
BuildRequires: gail-devel >= 0:%{gail_version}
if they are still needed, please get rid of the defines:
%define libauditver 1.0.6
%define pango_version 1.2.0
%define gtk2_version 2.6.0
%define libglade2_version 2.0.0
%define libgnomeui_version 2.2.0
%define scrollkeeper_version 0.3.4
%define pam_version 0.99.8.1-11
%define desktop_file_utils_version 0.2.90
%define gail_version 1.2.0
%define nss_version 3.11.1
%define fontconfig_version 2.6.0
and put them directly in the buildrequires. The current spec file is very
difficult to read.
3)
Make spec files fedora specific please otherwise the packaging is very
difficult to read
ie:
%if 0%{?rhel}
--with-gdm-src-dir=%{_topdir}/BUILD/%{gdm_version} \
--with-simple-greeter-plugins-dir=%{_libdir}/gdm/simple-greeter/plugins \
%endif
%if 0%{?rhel}
sed -i
"s~parent->setObjectName(\"welcome\");~parent->setObjectName(\"talker\");~"
kdm-plugin/src/kgreet_ovirtcred.cpp
%endif
just assume systemd will be used
# Install systemd script.
install -Dm 0644 ovirt-guest-agent/ovirt-guest-agent.service
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_unitdir}/ovirt-guest-agent.service
%if 0%{?rhel}
# No longer needed and is provided by the gdm package.
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libgdmsimplegreeter.so
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/gdm/simple-greeter/plugins/ovirtcred.a
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/gdm/simple-greeter/plugins/ovirtcred.la
%else
4)
/var/run is mounted dynamically as a tempfs. As a result, you will not want it
in the package. If you need directories in /var/run, you will need to create
them. I don't like it either if it makes you feel better ;)
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/run/ovirt-guest-agent
5)
The clean section isn't needed in fedora since about 12ish or so. It can be
removed.
6) please do not use static IDS (such as 175) in useradd. Also the proper
thing is not being done here re handling useradd failures.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups for the proper
mechanism.
After correcting the above, I'll go through an official 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 809843] Review Request: perl-Test-Reporter - Sends test results to cpan-test...@perl.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809843
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata 2012-04-12 10:44:10 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: No licenses found! Please check the source files for licenses
manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/809843/Test-Reporter-1.58.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 52ef5471e28ea441c0239606b1bb93e6
MD5SUM upstream package : 52ef5471e28ea441c0239606b1bb93e6
[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.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
TODO: With respect to Comment #1, including the COPYING file doesn't make sense
and is just confusing. I'd suggest
[Bug 807328] Review Request: drupal6-og - Organic Group Module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807328 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 10:19:04 EDT --- drupal6-og-2.2-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-og-2.2-4.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807328] Review Request: drupal6-og - Organic Group Module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807328 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 10:18:10 EDT --- drupal6-og-2.2-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-og-2.2-4.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 807328] Review Request: drupal6-og - Organic Group Module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807328 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 807328] Review Request: drupal6-og - Organic Group Module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807328 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 10:16:37 EDT --- drupal6-og-2.2-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-og-2.2-4.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809116] Review Request: novacom-client - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809116 Jonathan Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: novacom - |Review Request: |Utility to connect to WebOS |novacom-client - Utility to |devices |connect to WebOS devices --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Dieter 2012-04-12 09:54:08 EDT --- Updated package. Spec URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/novacom-client.spec SRPM URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/novacom-client-1.1.0-0.2.rc1.git.ff7641193a.fc16.src.rpm This adds the novaterm command which allows you to open a shell on the WebOS device, and also renames the package in accordance with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809114#c8. A metapackage named 'novacom' is included that brings in both the server and the client. The 'novacom' package description specifies that the novacomd service must be started. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809114] Review Request: novacom-server - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809114 Jonathan Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|pikachu.2...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary|Review Request: novacomd - |Review Request: |Utility to connect to WebOS |novacom-server - Utility to |devices |connect to WebOS devices --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Dieter 2012-04-12 09:47:45 EDT --- Ok, new release: Spec URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/novacom-server.spec SRPM URL: http://lesloueizeh.com/jdieter/novacom-server-1.1.0-0.2.rc1.fc16.src.rpm This adds a systemd service and renames the package in accordance with comment #8. The package still provides novacomd so a user can install it by typing "yum install novacomd". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804055] Review Request: spring-ldap - Java library for simplifying LDAP operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804055 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 09:45:38 EDT --- spring-ldap-1.3.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spring-ldap-1.3.1-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809806] Review Request: perl-Devel-Autoflush - Set autoflush from the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809806
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata 2012-04-12 09:38:15 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/809806/Devel-Autoflush-0.05.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 071061e12ce7ca4f3d62a2e329db0503
MD5SUM upstream package : 071061e12ce7ca4f3d62a2e329db0503
[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.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
None.
Approving.
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Bug 809843] Review Request: perl-Test-Reporter - Sends test results to cpan-test...@perl.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809843 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@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 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
--- Comment #14 from Juan Hernández 2012-04-12
09:28:22 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Out of the rpmlint warnings, these looks suspicious:
I can explain the reasons for those errors:
> ovirt-engine.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/share/ovirt-engine/scripts/vds_installer.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
This is script is not designed to run in the Fedora machine where it is
installed: it is to be downloaded (via web) by other machines that will then
execute it. So I think that it is better to have it without execution
permissions.
> ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/postgresql.py
> ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/jboss.py
These are SOS plugins and they have execution permission and no shebang, as all
the other SOS plugins.
> There are a lot of other warnings, but I can't see any of them
> being problems. eg. lots of complaints about "dangling symlinks"
> but they all appear to be satisfied by Required packages, so they
> wouldn't be a real problem (unless the dependent packages change ...)
This is a general issue with rpmlint, I thoroughly checked that the symlinks
are correct.
> We had a discussion on IRC about the version and release fields.
> Currently they are:
>
> Version: %{upstream_version}
> Release: 10.%{upstream_release}%{?dist}
>
> The usual rule is that "version belongs to upstream and release
> belongs to Fedora", which would imply:
>
> Version: %{upstream_version}.%{upstream_release}
> Release: 10.%{?dist}
I also had this discussion (with myself). At the end I came to the conclusion
that the "_0001" part of the upstream version number matches what in Fedora we
call a post-release (see [1]). If the upstream project increases this correctly
when they do new post-releases then it can go safely in the "Version" tag, as
you suggest. However there is no history of upstream releases (this is the
first one) so I can't be sure upstream is going to increase it correctly, so I
decided to put it in the "Release" tag to be on the safe side.
That said, I am pretty sure next upstream release will be 3.1.x, so this won't
be a problem.
I don't have anything against doing this change. Just let me know what you
prefer.
> I don't think this is a blocker, but it would be interesting
> to see what you think about making this change.
Thanks again!
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809747] Review Request: glassfish-jsp - Glassfish J2EE JSP API implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809747 --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2012-04-12 09:17:54 EDT --- Hmm, again...the package builds fine in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3985263 F17 doesn't have all dependencies yet, but that's only a matter of 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 809806] Review Request: perl-Devel-Autoflush - Set autoflush from the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809806 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@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 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239
--- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata 2012-04-12 09:06:50 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/811239/Data-Dumper-2.131.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 653ac6576e6916446419ae4ba786073f
MD5SUM upstream package : 653ac6576e6916446419ae4ba786073f
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
FIX: Both BuildRequire and Require Scalar::Util
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
[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
--- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones 2012-04-12 08:58:53
EDT ---
Out of the rpmlint warnings, these looks suspicious:
ovirt-engine.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/ovirt-engine/scripts/vds_installer.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/postgresql.py
ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/jboss.py
There are a lot of other warnings, but I can't see any of them
being problems. eg. lots of complaints about "dangling symlinks"
but they all appear to be satisfied by Required packages, so they
wouldn't be a real problem (unless the dependent packages change ...)
We had a discussion on IRC about the version and release fields.
Currently they are:
Version: %{upstream_version}
Release: 10.%{upstream_release}%{?dist}
The usual rule is that "version belongs to upstream and release
belongs to Fedora", which would imply:
Version: %{upstream_version}.%{upstream_release}
Release: 10.%{?dist}
I don't think this is a blocker, but it would be interesting
to see what you think about making this change.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772751] Review Request: git-review - Helper for Gerrit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772751 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-12 08:29:16 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 806665] Review Request: mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806665 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-12 08:29:44 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 807566] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-iok - gnome-shell extension for iok application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807566 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-12 08:30:24 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 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Spura 2012-04-12
08:00:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Updated the URLs above with the changes recommended. I also checked out EPEL
> and that seems to work as well.
Great, looks much better now :)
(A newline between every changelog and it would be fabulous :))
> 1. Apparently libgenders.so.0.3.0 calls exit(). This in case flex can't parse
> the primary genders config file. So I don't blame them for this since the
> entire library is useless in the condition the config file is wrong.
It would be best to report that upstream and suggesting the same like "rpmlint
-I":
"""
It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the
calling program decide how to handle the situation.
"""
> 2. There's a hardcoded library path in the spec %{_prefix}/lib/genders. This
> is where the compat libraries live. The automake also has this same hard coded
> library path and the files put there are old perl scripts. So I'm open for
> suggestions on what the 'right' thing to do is with these files. Could go out
> in %{_datadir}/%{name}?
arch dependent files need to be in %{_libdir}/%{name}, but these are perl
files, so %{_datadir}/%{name} would be correct from packaging point of view.
BUT: It would be best to patch that directly and send it upstream and while
looking at this, I found this in genders-1.18/compat/Makefile.am:
"""
# Don't use ${libdir}, the /lib is a legacy path that must be maintained
gendlibdir = ${prefix}/lib/genders
"""
So it would be best, to just leave it in %{_prefix}/lib/genders as that is the
forced path by upstream...
> 3. EPEL build keeps complaining about having an unspecified group. However,
> its not needed when I build it on Fedora. Should I care that much?
I'd add the group "Development/Tools" for any non-lib package and to the
libraries "Development/Libraries". Tools, because it's a helper tool for
cluster administrators and I consider a cluster always as a kind of development
going on.
> Also to the initial review I don't have any 'informal reviews' not sure what
> they'd be and where I'd get a link for them.
Once you are sponsored to the packager group you can do reviews like explained
here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer
But to get sponsored, we need to see, that you are familiar with the
guidelines. Here you have 2 possibilities:
* Put several packages for review
* Do 'informal reviews', that means, you can make comments to and improve other
pending reviews (preferably one that doesn't require a sponsor, because I'll
look to the review after you and can so directly approve it without needing to
sponsoring someone immediately).
Once you are sponsored to the packager group, you can directly approve other
reviews yourself.
More information about that is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Feel free to ask, when you have further questions.
(Here or via mail)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756445] Review Request: tor-arm - Terminal status monitor for Tor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756445 --- Comment #5 from Juan Orti Alcaine 2012-04-12 07:57:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > I think the code should go in %doc, since that's a example. I moved it to %doc SPEC: https://raw.github.com/jorti/arm-fedora-package/v1.4.4.1-8/SPECS/tor-arm.spec SRPM: https://github.com/jorti/arm-fedora-package/raw/v1.4.4.1-8/SRPMS/tor-arm-1.4.4.1-8.fc16.src.rpm Rpmlint output: tor-arm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US anonymizing -> anatomizing, canonizing, anodizing tor-arm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty tor-arm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US anonymizing -> anatomizing, canonizing, anodizing tor-arm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 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 #5 from Kalev Lember 2012-04-12 07:47:33 EDT --- Thanks, all very good points. Moved the typelib to -libs and updated the License tag along with the comment: > # - /usr/bin/glade is GPLv2+ > # - /usr/bin/glade-previewer is LGPLv2+ > # - libgladeui-2.so, libgladegtk.so, and libgladepython.so all combine > # GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ code, so the resulting binaries are GPLv2+ > License:GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/glade.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/glade-3.12.0-3.fc17.src.rpm * Thu Apr 12 2012 Kalev Lember - 3.12.0-3 - Update the spec file comments about licensing and simplify the License tag - Install the typelib in -libs subpackage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 805416] Review Request: google-croscore-fonts - The width-compatible fonts for improved on-screen readability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805416 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|google-croscore-fonts-1.21. |google-croscore-fonts-1.21. |0-2.fc17|0-2.fc16 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 07:29:28 EDT --- google-croscore-fonts-1.21.0-2.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 805416] Review Request: google-croscore-fonts - The width-compatible fonts for improved on-screen readability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805416 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|google-croscore-fonts-1.21. |google-croscore-fonts-1.21. |0-2.fc16|0-2.fc15 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 07:30:41 EDT --- google-croscore-fonts-1.21.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239 Petr Šabata 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 on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756435] Review Request: pytorctl - Python bindings for controlling the Tor router
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756435 --- Comment #4 from Juan Orti Alcaine 2012-04-12 07:26:42 EDT --- Updated files SPEC: https://raw.github.com/jorti/pytorctl-fedora-package/v0-0.9.20111213git/SPECS/pytorctl.spec SRPM: https://github.com/jorti/pytorctl-fedora-package/raw/v0-0.9.20111213git/SRPMS/pytorctl-0-0.9.20111213git.fc16.src.rpm Rpmlint output: pytorctl.src: W: invalid-url Source0: pytorctl-0-20111213git.tar.gz SPECS/pytorctl.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: pytorctl-0-20111213git.tar.gz 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #12 from Juan Hernández 2012-04-12 07:26:31 EDT --- I think that this version fixes all the issues you mention in comment #9. The updated spec and source package are available here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine/3.0.0-10.0001 The updated package builds correctly in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3985153 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811286] Review Request: rubygem-rhc-rest - Ruby bindings for OpenShift REST 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=811286 --- Comment #14 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-12 07:14:32 EDT --- Vit: OK, that's a motivation :) This review will continue, I appreciate if you look over my shoulder. Wesley: The remarks in comment #10 needs to be handled... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756443] Review Request: python-cagraph - A PyGTK widget for plotting charts and 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=756443 --- Comment #7 from Juan Orti Alcaine 2012-04-12 07:02:45 EDT --- Thank you for your review. I have fixed what you have told me, but I have decided to drop the patch to fix the FSF postal address, because based on other reviews I learned to not touch license information. These are the bugs reported upstream: FSF address: http://code.google.com/p/cagraph/issues/detail?id=3 PKG-INFO: http://code.google.com/p/cagraph/issues/detail?id=4 Shebangs: http://code.google.com/p/cagraph/issues/detail?id=5 SPEC file: https://raw.github.com/jorti/cagraph-fedora-package/v1.2-10.1/SPECS/python-cagraph.spec SRPM file: https://github.com/jorti/cagraph-fedora-package/raw/v1.2-10.1/SRPMS/python-cagraph-1.2-10.fc16.src.rpm Rpmlint output: SPECS/python-cagraph.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://cagraph.googlecode.com/files/cagraph-1.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example99.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/ca_graph.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example7.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/axis/taxis.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example4.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/axis/yaxis.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/series/area.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/series/dna.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example3.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/series/series.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example8.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example2.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/axis/xaxis.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/series/line.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example9.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/axis/axis.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/series/labels.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example5.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/ca_graph_file.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/series/bar.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example1.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/series/hbar.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cagraph/ca_graph_grid.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/test.py python-cagraph.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-cagraph-1.2/examples/example6.py python-cagraph.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://cagraph.googlecode.com/files/cagraph-1.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 25 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811286] Review Request: rubygem-rhc-rest - Ruby bindings for OpenShift REST 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=811286 --- Comment #13 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-12 06:56:42 EDT --- Alec, There was long discussion between FPC and Ruby-SIG about new guidelines required for Ruby 1.9.3. FPC approved the draft last week [1], so it is just matter of time when the official location will be updated. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/134 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811286] Review Request: rubygem-rhc-rest - Ruby bindings for OpenShift REST 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=811286 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-12 06:40:34 EDT --- > I am checking the spec file for F17 and above and it is not ideal. You should > use rubygems-devel package which provide the gemdir, etc. Please follow the > guildelines draft here [1]. Without questioning your judgement, the situation is still somewhat confusing: we have used the official ruby guidelines, and you tell us to use Toshio's draft instead. Whereas this might be perfectly reasonable, it requires some kind of motivation IMHO. With that said, not using rubygems-devel seems plain wrong. Removing fedora-review flag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones 2012-04-12 06:39:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Do you see any other important blocker for this package? It's complex, but it seems the complexity is largely unavoidable. Apart from that I don't see any blocker right now, but you must first fix those things I pointed out, and provide a new srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #10 from Juan Hernández 2012-04-12 06:28:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Some comments on the spec file: Thank you very much for the review. > - Why does the spec file contain a huge license section at the > top? I think you should avoid this, unless there is some pressing > reason for a specific license on the spec file itself. No need for that, I will remove it. > - py_site_pkgs uses %define, should almost certainly be using %global. You are right, missed that one. > - These seem to be unnecessary. I would remove them and use the programs > directly. > %global __getent /usr/bin/getent > %global __groupadd /usr/sbin/groupadd > %global __useradd /usr/sbin/useradd > %global __usermod /usr/sbin/usermod I will do that. > - The whole business of splitting the spec file into different *.inc > files ... I can't see this getting past a Fedora review, so I suggest > that you don't do it. I thought that splitting the spec in several files could make it easier to maintain, but I agree with you that it is not common practice. I will revert that change. > - There's some pretty funky stuff going on in scripts, such as backing > up directories before they are removed by RPM (and thereby bypassing > the whole purpose of RPM). What is the purpose of this and how much > of this can be avoided? Note that scripts are (a) the thing most likely > to fail during RPM installation and (b) the hardest thing to debug because > it happens on someone else's computer, so it's in your interest to > make scripts as simple/non-existent as possible. I will review that and remove as much as possible. Do you see any other important blocker for this 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 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 --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones 2012-04-12 06:19:39 EDT --- Some comments on the spec file: - Why does the spec file contain a huge license section at the top? I think you should avoid this, unless there is some pressing reason for a specific license on the spec file itself. - py_site_pkgs uses %define, should almost certainly be using %global. - These seem to be unnecessary. I would remove them and use the programs directly. %global __getent /usr/bin/getent %global __groupadd /usr/sbin/groupadd %global __useradd /usr/sbin/useradd %global __usermod /usr/sbin/usermod - The whole business of splitting the spec file into different *.inc files ... I can't see this getting past a Fedora review, so I suggest that you don't do it. - There's some pretty funky stuff going on in scripts, such as backing up directories before they are removed by RPM (and thereby bypassing the whole purpose of RPM). What is the purpose of this and how much of this can be avoided? Note that scripts are (a) the thing most likely to fail during RPM installation and (b) the hardest thing to debug because it happens on someone else's computer, so it's in your interest to make scripts as simple/non-existent as possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rjo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Richard W.M. Jones 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 on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811286] Review Request: rubygem-rhc-rest - Ruby bindings for OpenShift REST 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=811286 --- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-12 06:03:31 EDT --- Also, I'd love to see the test suite executed in %check section, if that is available. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811286] Review Request: rubygem-rhc-rest - Ruby bindings for OpenShift REST 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=811286 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-12 06:01:02 EDT --- Wesley, I am checking the spec file for F17 and above and it is not ideal. You should use rubygems-devel package which provide the gemdir, etc. Please follow the guildelines draft here [1]. Also, your .spec file states on the first line that it was generated by gem2rpm from bson gem [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/RubyPackagingDraft#.25prep -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785694] Review Request: jpfcodegen - A tool for generating classes from JPF plug-ins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785694 Alexander Kurtakov 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 805035] Review Request: janino-parent - Parent POM for Janino
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805035 Alexander Kurtakov 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 784593] Review Request: ritopt - A Java library for parsing command-line options
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784593 Alexander Kurtakov 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 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 Rui Matos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tiagoma...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Rui Matos 2012-04-12 05:05:50 EDT --- * The .typelib should go in the -libs package * This License line is quite confusing: %package libs ... License:GPLv2+ and (GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+) and LGPLv2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810928] Review Request: sticky-notes - Sticky notes is a free and open source paste-bin application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810928 --- Comment #7 from David Riches 2012-04-12 05:05:49 EDT --- Yeah, that would be great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810926] Review Request: rubygem-qpid - Ruby bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810926
--- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-12 04:46:22 EDT
---
Hi Darryl,
You should follow the rename guidelines [1] IMO. So the "Provides: ruby-qpid"
should be accompanied by "Obsoletes" directive.
So for F16, it should look like:
Provides: ruby-qpid = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: ruby-qpid < 0.8-2
Btw since the package needs to go into Rawhide first, it would be nice if you
could prepare the .spec file for Rawhide.
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807566] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-iok - gnome-shell extension for iok application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807566 Parag changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Parag 2012-04-12 04:43:14 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-shell-extension-iok Short Description: gnome-shell extension for iok application Owners: pnemade Branches: f17 InitialCC: i18n-team -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807566] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-iok - gnome-shell extension for iok application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807566 --- Comment #2 from Parag 2012-04-12 04:40:56 EDT --- Thanks dueno for the review. I will resolve issues while importing 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 807566] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-iok - gnome-shell extension for iok application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807566
Daiki Ueno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Daiki Ueno 2012-04-12 03:29:22 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
According to extenson.js header, it seems GPLv2+, not GPLv2.
[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.
[-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-iok-0.20120328-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-iok.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
keymap -> key map, key-map, mapmaker
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-iok-0.20120328-1.fc18.src.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-iok.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keymap
-> key map, key-map, mapmaker
gnome-shell-extension-iok.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
pnemade-gnome-shell-extension-iok-13a043e.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Package has no sources or they are generated by developer
[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).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[!]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if ava
[Bug 811286] Review Request: rubygem-rhc-rest - Ruby bindings for OpenShift REST 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=811286 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-12 03:27:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > You ran rpmlint on the wrong package. That one is not mine :P Oops, too late in the evening for me ;) All issues resolved. *** 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 807625] Review Request: lohit-nepali-fonts - Open Type Font for Nepali Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807625 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 807625] Review Request: lohit-nepali-fonts - Open Type Font for Nepali Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807625 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 03:16:49 EDT --- lohit-nepali-fonts-2.5.1.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lohit-nepali-fonts-2.5.1.1-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
