[Bug 814887] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 --- Comment #7 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-21 00:26:54 EDT --- So basically just remove this %defattr(-,root,root) thats correct? (In reply to comment #5) > I've added the indication that you require a sponsor. > > As for %defattr, basically you never need to say > %defattr(-,root,root) > because that is the default. It is very rare that you ever need anything but > the default; I can only find one package that uses something else. So you > pretty much always want to just leave %defattr out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814887] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-04-21 00:12:38 EDT --- I've added the indication that you require a sponsor. As for %defattr, basically you never need to say %defattr(-,root,root) because that is the default. It is very rare that you ever need anything but the default; I can only find one package that uses something else. So you pretty much always want to just leave %defattr out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814894] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814894 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-04-21 00:13:20 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-04-21 00:13:20 EDT --- It is not necessary to open more than one review ticket for each package. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 814887 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814887] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-04-21 00:13:20 EDT --- *** Bug 814894 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814894] New: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814894 Summary: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: aal...@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://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro-0.5-2.fc16.src.rpm Description: Welcome to the Canal Encuentro visualization program! This is a simple program to search, download and see the content of the Canal Encuentro. This program is strongly oriented to Spanish speaking people, as the content of Canal Encuentro is only in Spanish... for further information please check the LEEME.txt file. Notes regarding licenses: - The content of Canal Encuentro is not distributed at all, but downloaded personally by the user, please check here to see the licenses about that content: http://www.encuentro.gov.ar My first pkg looking for an sponsor -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814887] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 --- Comment #4 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-20 23:40:41 EDT --- I fixed all that you suggest and I added the new versions into my fedorapeople new spec and new src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > Some comments: > > Is this your first package? Do you require a sponsor? > > BuildRoot: is unnecessary unless you play to build for RHEL5. And if you do, > you'll need to add cleaning of the buildroot in %install. > > You can not use Prefix:, Packager:, or Vendor: in Fedora. > > An empty %build is not actually required. (Maybe for RHEL5; I'm not sure.) > > %clean is not required (except for RHEL5, again). > > %defattr(-,root,root) is not required; you only need it if you're specifying a > non-default value. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814887] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 Adrian Alves changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(aal...@gmail.com) --- Comment #3 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-20 23:30:40 EDT --- Hello Jason, First of all thanks and Yes is my first pkg and I need an sponsor. can you clarify me this: %defattr(-,root,root) is not required; you only need it if you're specifying a non-default value. how need to me done in this case am an old builder for RHEL thats why u founded a lot of old RHEL5 flags, and many thanks for ur help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814888] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814888 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-04-20 22:45:05 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-04-20 22:45:05 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 814887 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814887] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-04-20 22:44:38 EDT --- Some comments: Is this your first package? Do you require a sponsor? BuildRoot: is unnecessary unless you play to build for RHEL5. And if you do, you'll need to add cleaning of the buildroot in %install. You can not use Prefix:, Packager:, or Vendor: in Fedora. An empty %build is not actually required. (Maybe for RHEL5; I'm not sure.) %clean is not required (except for RHEL5, again). %defattr(-,root,root) is not required; you only need it if you're specifying a non-default value. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814887] Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-04-20 22:45:05 EDT --- *** Bug 814888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814888] New: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814888 Summary: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: aal...@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://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro-0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Welcome to the Canal Encuentro visualization program! This is a simple program to search, download and see the content of the Canal Encuentro. This program is strongly oriented to Spanish speaking people, as the content of Canal Encuentro is only in Spanish... for further information please check the LEEME.txt file. Notes regarding licenses: - The content of Canal Encuentro is not distributed at all, but downloaded personally by the user, please check here to see the licenses about that content: http://www.encuentro.gov.ar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814887] New: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814887 Summary: Review Request: encuentro - Content visualization of the Canal Encuentro. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: aal...@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://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro-0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Welcome to the Canal Encuentro visualization program! This is a simple program to search, download and see the content of the Canal Encuentro. This program is strongly oriented to Spanish speaking people, as the content of Canal Encuentro is only in Spanish... for further information please check the LEEME.txt file. Notes regarding licenses: - The content of Canal Encuentro is not distributed at all, but downloaded personally by the user, please check here to see the licenses about that content: http://www.encuentro.gov.ar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812538] Review Request: herbstluftwm - 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=812538
--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-04-20 17:26:07 EDT
---
OK, this builds fine (on rawhide); rpmlint has only one complaint:
herbstluftwm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/bash_completion.d/herbstclient-completion
This is fine; those files shouldn't be there, but that's not your fault.
The project makefile is annoying; it hides the actual compiler call (so we
can't verify the compiler flags it is using), does not provide a verbose mode
and inserts control sequences which look more like line noise in the build
logs. I had to build with a quick patch to get that done properly:
diff -up ./rules.mk.orig ./rules.mk
--- ./rules.mk.orig 2012-04-20 16:05:30.840050949 -0500
+++ ./rules.mk 2012-04-20 16:05:44.030637343 -0500
@@ -4,18 +4,14 @@ all: $(TARGET)
rb: clean all
$(TARGET): $(OBJ)
- $(call colorecho,LD,$(TARGET))
- @$(LD) -o $@ $(LDFLAGS) $(OBJ) $(LIBS)
+ $(LD) -o $@ $(LDFLAGS) $(OBJ) $(LIBS)
$(SRCDIR)/%.o: $(SRCDIR)/%.c $(HEADER)
- $(call colorecho,CC,$<)
- @$(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<
+ $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $<
clean:
- $(call colorecho,RM,$(TARGET))
- @rm -f $(TARGET)
- $(call colorecho,RM,$(OBJ))
- @rm -f $(OBJ)
+ rm -f $(TARGET)
+ rm -f $(OBJ)
info:
@echo Some Info:
and the result is that indeed, the package isn't built with the proper Fedora
compiler flags. Unfortunately the makefile doesn't allow you to pass your own,
so I used the following in %prep:
sed -i -e 's/^CFLAGS =.*/CFLAGS = %{optflags} -std=c99 -pedantic ${INCS} -D
_XOPEN_SOURCE=600/' config.mk
Still seems to build after that but you'll need to do some testing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813416] Review Request: drupal6-views_bonus - miscellaneous features that aren't distributed by Views itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813416 --- Comment #7 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-20 16:44:10 EDT --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-views_bonus.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-views_bonus-1.1-3.fc16.src.rpm new files up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813416] Review Request: drupal6-views_bonus - miscellaneous features that aren't distributed by Views itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813416 --- Comment #6 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 16:36:17 EDT --- Ok, one small thing left it looks like, the README.txt should be listed in %doc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813416] Review Request: drupal6-views_bonus - miscellaneous features that aren't distributed by Views itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813416 --- Comment #5 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-20 16:19:42 EDT --- doh! can you wget the src rpm again... it should be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813416] Review Request: drupal6-views_bonus - miscellaneous features that aren't distributed by Views itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813416 --- Comment #4 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 16:08:25 EDT --- [0]whearn@Doom:~/Downloads $ rpm -qlp drupal6-views_bonus-1.1-2.fc16.src.rpm LICENSE.txt drupal6-views-bonus.spec views_bonus-6.x-1.1.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813416] Review Request: drupal6-views_bonus - miscellaneous features that aren't distributed by Views itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813416 --- Comment #3 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-20 16:04:17 EDT --- it is named: drupal6-views_bonus.spec (there is a "views-bonus" on the host, but the link above it so drupal6-views_bonus.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813416] Review Request: drupal6-views_bonus - miscellaneous features that aren't distributed by Views itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813416 --- Comment #2 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 16:00:25 EDT --- Spec file is named wrong. Should be named drupal6-views_bonus.spec, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789055] Review Request: japa - JACK and ALSA Perceptual Analyser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789055 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw 2012-04-20 15:25:59 EDT --- +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2+ [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc: COPYING [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (ed7d752924bfecdb76786bcbde223bc8) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16/rawhide x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [?] package functions as described: Not tested [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [+] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts The two problems in comment 4 should be taken care of but they're not blockers. *** 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 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414
--- Comment #6 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 14:50:02 EDT ---
Good: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[0]whearn@Doom:~/rpmbuild $ rpmlint
SRPMS/drupal6-better_formats-1.2-3.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[02:20 PM]
[0]whearn@Doom:~/rpmbuild $ rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/drupal6-better_formats-1.2-3.fc16.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[02:20 PM]
[0]whearn@Doom:~/rpmbuild $ rpmlint SPECS/drupal6-better_formats.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Good: MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
Good: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
Good: MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Good: MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
Good: MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
See Note: MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
Good: MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
Good: MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
Good: MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[02:42 PM]
[0]whearn@Doom:~/Downloads $ md5sum better_formats-6.x-1.2.tar.gz
4691f68977cb5d50eb782b1c14ec79ba better_formats-6.x-1.2.tar.gz
[02:42 PM]
[0]whearn@Doom:~/Downloads $ md5sum
~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/better_formats-6.x-1.2.tar.gz
4691f68977cb5d50eb782b1c14ec79ba
/home/whearn/rpmbuild/SOURCES/better_formats-6.x-1.2.tar.gz
noarch: MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
noarch: MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
Good: MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Good: MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
noarch: MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
Good: MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Good: MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
Good: MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
Good: MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
Good: MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
Good: MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Good: MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
Good: MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
Good: MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
noarch: MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
Good: MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
not needed: MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa}
= %{version}-%{release}
Good: MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
[Bug 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414 Wesley Hearn changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 14:50:43 EDT --- Approving. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810335] Review Request: python-fabulous - Makes your terminal output totally fabulous
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810335 --- Comment #3 from Ian Weller 2012-04-20 14:35:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > 2) I also don't see the definition of sitelib for noarch packages at the top > of > the spec file, as indicated in the template > /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-python.spec. Is it not needed anymore? For all non-EOL releases of Fedora and EPEL 6, it is no longer needed. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros If Ralph plans to build this for EPEL 5 or lower he will need to have the sitelib definition. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809882] Review Request: ansible - Minimal SSH command and control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809882 --- Comment #4 from Tim Bielawa 2012-04-20 14:33:14 EDT --- I've updated the spec and srpm from what was in my last comment. Current latest sha256sum's: 5fcc5476235cc7f632618ff6bfe75966067084255d0d7cca6ab38f3388bac1e2 ansible-0.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm d59cf63e306fd5ad77793803e9e424b391fc643fa56b61d61ea79f4878fb2103 ansible.spec Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tbielawa/ansible/ansible-0.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Diff from last time: > %define _dusetup packaging/distutils/setup.py ... > Requires: PyYAML There is now a 'Requires' on PyYAML, and there is a macro '_dusetup' for references to the distutils setup.py file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414 --- Comment #5 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-20 14:07:54 EDT --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-better_formats.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-better_formats-1.2-3.fc16.src.rpm updated -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414 --- Comment #4 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-20 14:03:47 EDT --- incorrect-fsf-address - I believe the exact rpm-lint error. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414 --- Comment #3 from Anderson Silva 2012-04-20 13:58:22 EDT --- I can change the description. the LICENSE.txt is 'broken' as it has an old Address to the FSF, and rpmlint throws an error on it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414 Wesley Hearn changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 13:56:56 EDT --- Is there a reason you are not using the LICENSE.txt file inside the tar ball? Also under description can you change it to what the site has? "Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format system." http://drupal.org/project/better_formats -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814804] New: Review Request: OpenColorIO - Enables color transforms and image display across graphics apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: OpenColorIO - Enables color transforms and image display across graphics apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814804 Summary: Review Request: OpenColorIO - Enables color transforms and image display across graphics apps 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/OpenColorIO/OpenColorIO.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/OpenColorIO/OpenColorIO-1.0.7-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Enables color transforms and image display to be handled in a consistent manner across multiple graphics applications. Unlike other color management solutions, OpenColorIO is geared towards motion-picture post production, with an emphasis on visual effects and animation color pipelines. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mockbuild/16/OpenColorIO/*.rpm OpenColorIO.src: W: invalid-url Source0: imageworks-OpenColorIO-v1.0.7-0-g87da508.tar.gz Github source. Instructions provided in spec file. OpenColorIO-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Documentation is in a -doc 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 813416] Review Request: drupal6-views_bonus - miscellaneous features that aren't distributed by Views itself
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813416 Wesley Hearn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||whe...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|whe...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 13:40:16 EDT --- I will take this -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414 Wesley Hearn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||whe...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|whe...@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 813414] Review Request: drupal6-better_formats - Better formats is a module to add more flexibility to Drupal's core input format 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=813414 --- Comment #1 from Wesley Hearn 2012-04-20 13:40:09 EDT --- I will take this -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-20 13:22:31 EDT --- Nothing now, but you could always do a Merge 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 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-20 13:22:59 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 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones 2012-04-20 13:12:09 EDT --- Thanks for the review Jon. Let me know if I can return the favour. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lv2 Short Description: Audio Plugin Standard Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-20 13:01:33 EDT --- Ok, just the docs and symlinks now, and those are more or less OK. The obsoletes and requires are good. I'm not thrilled with the bundled waf, but since it's just a build tool and not included I'll let it slide for now, but if you or upstream can ever get it building with system waf that would be highly preferable. 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 812674] Review Request: gnome-nettool - Graphical front-ends to various networking command-line tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812674 --- Comment #19 from Kalev Lember 2012-04-20 12:50:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > 4. I can't install the packages in a F17 chroot because the programs are in > /bin still, not /usr/bin... Perhaps you need an %if conditionals for the > requires for usrmove? Turns out you were right here all along. Apparently in addition to working with remote repos, repoquery also uses local rpm database for depsolving, sometimes (!). And the local rpm database somehow handles the /bin -> /usr/bin symlink, so that it can resolve symlinked directories in already installed packages. $ rpm -qf /bin/netstat net-tools-1.60-134.20120127git.fc17.x86_64 $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/netstat net-tools-1.60-134.20120127git.fc17.x86_64 Watch the inconsistency here, can't find provides for '/usr/bin/netstat' when it's the only thing I'm quering: $ repoquery -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/netstat $ repoquery -q --whatprovides /bin/netstat net-tools-0:1.60-134.20120127git.fc17.x86_64 ... but works when '/usr/bin/dig' is also specified on the command line: $ repoquery -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/dig /usr/bin/netstat bind-utils-32:9.9.0-1.fc17.x86_64 bind-utils-32:9.9.0-1.fc17.x86_64 Fixed in http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gnome-nettool.git;a=commitdiff;h=661fcbdf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones 2012-04-20 12:39:51 EDT --- Also, can you please confirm that I've got the Obsoletes/Requires correct? Its more of a replacement than a rename as the version of this package is 1.0.0 and lv2core is currently sitting at lv2core-6.0-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones 2012-04-20 12:37:24 EDT --- Thanks for taking this on. I should have reposted the rpmlint out put when I re-uploaded the package. The build fails with system waf (even though they are the same version). This is a patched custom waf script used quite widely in linux audio projects. Waf upstream recommends always bundling a local waf (not saying I agree). There's no clear guidelines on this. All other fixes done. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/lv2.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/lv2-1.0.0-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-20 12:33:45 EDT --- pytorctl-0-0.9.20111213git.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pytorctl-0-0.9.20111213git.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 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 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 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 #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-20 12:35:57 EDT --- python-cagraph-1.2-10.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cagraph-1.2-10.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 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 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 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-20 12:11:32 EDT --- ood: - rpmlint checks return: See above. Should these last remaining obsoletes warnings not be fixed? lv2.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided lv2-ui(x86-64) lv2-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided lv2-ui-devel(x86-64) Also: lv2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources Fix. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ISC ) OK, text in %doc, matches source I also see MIT and CC-AT-SA - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok Fix. - devel requires base package n-v-r Also, I see it's using a local waf, why not BuildRequire waf and use the system waf? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814719] Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information 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=814719 Adrien Devresse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Adrien Devresse 2012-04-20 11:56:39 EDT --- > Furthermore, set the STATUS and fedora_review flags to their correct values > when taking on a review. Sorry for this, it is done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814719] Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information 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=814719 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-04-20 11:50:15 EDT --- adev: please fill in your full name in bugzilla. Furthermore, set the STATUS and fedora_review flags to their correct values when taking on a 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 814719] Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information 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=814719 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola 2012-04-20 11:50:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > adev: please fill in your full name in bugzilla. This also goes for Laurence. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814542] Review Request: lv2 - Audio Plugin standard (lv2core rename)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814542 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-20 10:58:09 EDT --- I'll take this. . . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814719] Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information 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=814719 --- Comment #2 from laurence.fi...@cern.ch 2012-04-20 10:40:54 EDT --- Sorry, stupid mistake Spec URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/lcg-infosites.spec SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/lcg-infosites-3.1.0-2.fc16.src.rpm Description: Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information system -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810335] Review Request: python-fabulous - Makes your terminal output totally fabulous
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810335
Germán Racca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Germán Racca 2012-04-20 10:29:25 EDT ---
Hi Ralph,
just some quick comments:
1) Why you don't use macros in the spec file?
Instead of writing:
Source0: http://lobstertech.com/media/file/fabulous/fabulous-0.1.5.tar.gz
you should use:
Source0:
http://lobstertech.com/media/file/%{modname}/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz
so you don't need to update this line every time you bump the sepc file and
avoid compiling an old source by mistake.
2) I also don't see the definition of sitelib for noarch packages at the top of
the spec file, as indicated in the template
/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-python.spec. Is it not needed anymore?
HTH,
Germán.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814719] Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information 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=814719 adev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ade...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ade...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from adev 2012-04-20 10:30:49 EDT --- I take care of this. But seems that you provided to the noarch RPMS instead of the SRPMS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814719] New: Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814719 Summary: Review Request: lcg-infosites - Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: laurence.fi...@cern.ch 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://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/lcg-infosites.spec SRPM URL: http://lfield.web.cern.ch/lfield/fedora/lcg-infosites-3.1.0-2.fc16.noarch.rpm Description: Command line tool in Perl for the LCG information system -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807819] Review Request: uboot-beagle - U-Boot for beagleboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807819 Dennis Gilmore changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-04-20 09:59:27 --- Comment #3 from Dennis Gilmore 2012-04-20 09:59:27 EDT --- ive worked out how to build this from the uboot-tools package and am building an update now. i have included the u-boot.img file as well -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807818] Review Request: uboot-panda - U-Boot for pandaboard
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807818 Dennis Gilmore changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-04-20 10:00:36 --- Comment #5 from Dennis Gilmore 2012-04-20 10:00:36 EDT --- ive worked out how to build this from the uboot-tools package and am building an update now. i have included the u-boot.img file as well -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811661] Review Request: scirenderer - A Java rendering library based on JoGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811661 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|NEW CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov 2012-04-20 09:55:37 EDT --- The bug should be in new state until someone take it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 805864] Review Request: glassfish-jsp-api - Glassfish J2EE JSP API specification
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805864 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #11 from Darryl L. Pierce 2012-04-20 09:39:13 EDT --- It's been a week since the last update. Can we continue (and hopefully complete) the package review? I do have one question: we're likely going to rename the gem from qpid to qpid-messaging due to the owner of the original qpid gem on RubyForge.org not following through with his promise to release that name to our project. How will this affect the review process? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797146] Review Request: eclipse-color-theme - An Eclipse plugin which permits color theme switching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797146 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov 2012-04-20 09:39:40 EDT --- Would you please modify the spec to make use of the new /usr/bin/eclipse-pdebuild script instead of _libdir/eclipse/buildscripts...? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809503] Review Request: liquibase - Database refactoring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809503 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-20 09:32:17 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 809503] Review Request: liquibase - Database refactoring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809503 Devan Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Devan Goodwin 2012-04-20 09:25:39 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: liquibase Short Description: Database refactoring tool Owners: dgoodwin jmrodri Branches: f15 f16 el6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800264] Review Request: perl-Net-Google-DataAPI - Base implementations for modules to negotiate with Google Data APIs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800264 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814644] New: Review Request: doxygen18 - A documentation system for C/C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: doxygen18 - A documentation system for C/C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814644 Summary: Review Request: doxygen18 - A documentation system for C/C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steve.tray...@cern.ch 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://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/doxygen18/doxygen18.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/doxygen18/doxygen18-1.8.0.el5.centos.src.rpm Description: Doxygen can generate an online class browser (in HTML) and/or a reference manual (in LaTeX) from a set of documented source files. The documentation is extracted directly from the sources. Doxygen can also be configured to extract the code structure from undocumented source files. This package is for EPEL5 only and provides /usr/bin/doxygen18 and doxygen version 1.8 to live with out interference to the existing doxygen 1.4 package in RHEL5. rpmlint returns doxygen18.src:38: W: configure-without-libdir-spec but there are no libraries and its not a real full configure script as such. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814644] Review Request: doxygen18 - A documentation system for C/C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814644 --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen 2012-04-20 06:28:23 EDT --- Correct URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/doxygen18/doxygen18-1.8.0-2.el5.centos.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 786213] Review Request: trac-agilo-plugin - A plugin for supporting the Scrum process in Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786213 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-20 05:35:52 EDT --- trac-agilo-plugin-0.9.7-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trac-agilo-plugin-0.9.7-2.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 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #30 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-20 04:06:49 EDT
---
Hi Todd,
(In reply to comment #29)
> I spent time over the past few days adding support for gem_extdir on Fedora >=
> 17. An update spec file is now in place:
>
> http://tmz.fedorapeople.org/specs/rubygem-ruby-shadow.spec
Thank you Todd. I have a few notes:
* The EPEL section is wrong. It has to follow the old guidelines (hm, they are
lost somewhere :/ [1]), so you should update the %{gem_dir} macro:
%global gem_dir %(ruby -rubygems -e 'puts Gem::dir' 2>/dev/null)
The rest is OK.
* Detecting version of Ruby is not good practice IMO. What if you have
installed by a chance older version of Ruby on your system and later you will
produce unexpected packages? I know, it will never happen on build system, but
might bite somebody when rebuilding locally.
* The linking of *.so for Fedoras < 17 and EPEL is wrong. Actually there should
be no linking at all. You should move the library into the sitearch dir:
mv %{buildroot}%{gem_libdir}/shadow.so %{buildroot}%{ruby_sitearch}/shadow.so
The approach is the same for all mentioned versions.
> As far as adding a comment about the licensing, would it suffice to link to
> the
> original ruby-shadow review? This code has not changed since then as far as
> the licensing, so I don't think there's any reason to try and chase down the
> original authors for a statement.
Well, as far as I am looking into the original review, there were also
uncertainties about licensing which were never clarified. Also, the reviewer
guidelines contains this line:
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.
So I would appreciate if you can ask upstream about the license.
>
> With respect to Fedora 15/16 support, I thought that they were supposed to
> have
> backported support in ruby/irb/rubygems so that installing to the gemdir would
> allow the module to be used from ruby? This does not work for me:
>
> [root@f16-32 /]# cat /etc/redhat-release
> Fedora release 16 (Verne)
> [root@f16-32 /]# rpm -qa ruby\*
> rubygems-1.8.11-1.fc16.1.noarch
> ruby-libs-1.8.7.358-1.fc16.i686
> ruby-irb-1.8.7.358-1.fc16.noarch
> rubygem-ruby-shadow-2.1.3-2.fc16.i686
> ruby-1.8.7.358-1.fc16.i686
> ruby-rdoc-1.8.7.358-1.fc16.noarch
> [root@f16-32 /]# irb
> irb(main):001:0> require 'shadow'
> LoadError: no such file to load -- shadow
> from (irb):1:in `require'
> from (irb):1
> from :0
You have forgotten one important thing: require 'rubygems' , since rubygems
were not loaded by default in Ruby 1.8. Also 'gem list' is useful command for
basic check if gem is installed and recognized by RubyGems.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/165
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
