[Bug 814458] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for 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=814458 Rosen Diankov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rosen.dian...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Rosen Diankov 2012-04-23 01:27:53 EDT --- The upstream maintainer for fparser is Juha Nieminen (juha.niemi...@gmail.com). I've talked to him about including the cmake patches, but doesn't see the reason for cluttering up the source code with platform-dependent configuration files. Perhaps you'll have more luck convincing him; more people nagging about the same issue should have more impact. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #90 from Rosen Diankov 2012-04-23 01:31:33 EDT --- while i am at it, i saw this post: http://git.fawkesrobotics.org/fawkes.git/commitdiff/7488ceba5729fb35b7faab86779434acdc76cf3f you should be able to do: const Vector& trans; __env->plot3(&trans[0], ...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #89 from Rosen Diankov 2012-04-23 01:25:15 EDT --- hi tim, i had a question on the comment you made here: http://git.fawkesrobotics.org/fawkes.git/commitdiff/eb2deb5bd5757b16c1b68a56cc7bc815319646ae "Also, the OpenRAVE tools gave invalid flags for x86_64 (included 32bit lib dir)." can you give us the current output and expected output? by openrave tools, do you mean the openrave-config program? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812698] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder-conduit - Convert builder streams to bytestring streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812698 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen 2012-04-23 00:26:12 EDT --- Thank you very much for reviewing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-blaze-builder-conduit Short Description: Convert builder streams to bytestring streams Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812698] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder-conduit - Convert builder streams to bytestring streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812698 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812698] Review Request: ghc-blaze-builder-conduit - Convert builder streams to bytestring streams
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812698
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan 2012-04-23
00:20:08 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bytestring ->
byte string, byte-string, restringing
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad ->
nomad, gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bytestring
-> byte string, byte-string, restringing
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad
-> nomad, gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
bytestring -> byte string, byte-string, restringing
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package.
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD license.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum blaze-builder-conduit-0.3.0.tar.gz
56708a17c1257236a5725c615146bcae blaze-builder-conduit-0.3.0.tar.gz
md5sum
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit-0.3.0-1.fc16.src/blaze-builder-conduit-0.3.0.tar.gz
56708a17c1257236a5725c615146bcae
ghc-blaze-builder-conduit-0.3.0-1.fc16.src/blaze-builder-conduit-0.3.0.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Install
[Bug 805666] Review Request: lldpd - Link Layer Discovery Protocol Daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805666 Balaji G changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(balajig81@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #9 from Balaji G 2012-04-22 23:24:30 EDT --- Sorry Rex. I have made the changes i ll upload the spec within this week. Was tied up a bit with other work :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #8 from Ralph Bean 2012-04-22 22:35:30 EDT --- And yet another revision. Got the sphinx docs to build correctly with judicious use of PYTHONPATH. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-fabulous.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-fabulous-0.1.5-4.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from Ralph Bean 2012-04-22 22:29:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > There's no requirement for doing so, but you might consider building the > Sphinx > documentation and putting it in %doc. (Then again, it's just a bunch of > autodoc > declarations, so it's the same thing you'd get with pydoc on the command line. > Your choice, really, if you think the HTML documentation is useful.) I took a stab at it but had some trouble getting it to work with "make -C docs html". It doesn't seem to be straightforward so I'm skipping it for now. > python-fabulous.src: W: file-size-mismatch fabulous-0.1.5.tar.gz = 322526, > http://lobstertech.com/media/file/fabulous/fabulous-0.1.5.tar.gz = 322052 > python-fabulous.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/python-fabulous-0.1.5/README > python-fabulous.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fabulous/_xterm256.c > > Looks like upstream changed their source archive (blegh). Run dos2unix on > README and that should fix the end of line problem. You can also just nuke > _xterm256.c, it doesn't look like it's used at all and was just used as a > reference for xterm256.py. I put up a new revision that should fix those three: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-fabulous.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-fabulous-0.1.5-3.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Ian Weller 2012-04-22 22:06:28 EDT --- There's no requirement for doing so, but you might consider building the Sphinx documentation and putting it in %doc. (Then again, it's just a bunch of autodoc declarations, so it's the same thing you'd get with pydoc on the command line. Your choice, really, if you think the HTML documentation is useful.) rpmlint barfs: python-fabulous.src: W: file-size-mismatch fabulous-0.1.5.tar.gz = 322526, http://lobstertech.com/media/file/fabulous/fabulous-0.1.5.tar.gz = 322052 python-fabulous.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-fabulous-0.1.5/README python-fabulous.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fabulous/_xterm256.c Looks like upstream changed their source archive (blegh). Run dos2unix on README and that should fix the end of line problem. You can also just nuke _xterm256.c, it doesn't look like it's used at all and was just used as a reference for xterm256.py. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #4 from Ralph Bean 2012-04-22 21:19:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > If Ralph plans to build this for EPEL 5 or lower he will need to have the > sitelib definition. No plans to build for EPEL 5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #5 from Ralph Bean 2012-04-22 21:21:22 EDT --- Here is a second revision: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-fabulous.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-fabulous-0.1.5-2.fc17.src.rpm - Patched out the bundled fonts. - Included COPYING and README in the %doc - Started using the modname macro at Germán Racca's suggestion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814458] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for 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=814458
Rich Mattes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||richmat...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|richmat...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes 2012-04-22 17:45:52 EDT
---
This package looks pretty simple, I'll go ahead and review it.
+ = PASS, - = FAIL, N = Not Applicable.
[+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/fparser-4.4.3-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/fparser*
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
The MUST items are covered, but the guidelines indicate that patches SHOULD
include a comment with each patch file. The patch included includes a full
CMake-based build system. Have you been in contact with upstream about it?
[+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[N] 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.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
$ md5sum fparser4.4.3.zip ../SOURCES/fparser4.4.3.zip
035ee59ed53d4ec723186625293fbb8b fparser4.4.3.zip
035ee59ed53d4ec723186625293fbb8b ../SOURCES/fparser4.4.3.zip
[+] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[N] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[N] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] 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.
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[N] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] 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)
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[N] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[+] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
I think this is a newer requirement, but it is a simple fix.
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
[N] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
So action items are
* Include the %{?_isa} macro in the -devel package's Requires field
* Include a comment about the CMake patch. It would be much easier on us if
upstream takes the cmake patch and/or adds their own build scripts to the
release tarballs, I'd like to if they're receptive to this idea or if the cmake
patch will have to be a fedora-only patch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list fo
[Bug 815141] New: Review Request: pyshp - Pure Python read/write support for ESRI Shapefile format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: pyshp - Pure Python read/write support for ESRI Shapefile format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815141 Summary: Review Request: pyshp - Pure Python read/write support for ESRI Shapefile format 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/pyshp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/pyshp-1.1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Pure Python read/write support for ESRI Shapefile format rpmlint: pyshp.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-pyshp.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4013593 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814916] Review Request: sratom - a C library for serializing LV2 plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814916 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert 2012-04-22 15:40:58 EDT --- Fedora Review sratom 2012-04-22 $ rpmlint sratom*.rpm sratom.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serialising -> serializing, serialization sratom.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialising -> serializing, serialization sratom.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialisation -> serialization, sensationalist, sensationalism sratom.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialise -> serialize, serial, aerialist sratom.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serialising -> serializing, serialization sratom.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialising -> serializing, serialization sratom.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialisation -> serialization, sensationalist, sensationalism sratom.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialise -> serialize, serial, aerialist sratom-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialising -> serializing, serialization sratom-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialisation -> serialization, sensationalist, sensationalism sratom-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialise -> serialize, serial, aerialist 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Clean except for American English spelling in Summary and Description. + Package name according to guidelines + Specfile named after package + Package license (MIT) Fedora approved + Package license reflects license as stated in the sources + License file (COPYING) included as %doc - Specfile uses British spelling in summary and description This should be changed to American spelling according to guidelines See also the rpmlint report above + Specfile is readable + Source matches upstream $ md5sum sratom-0.2.0.tar.bz2 srpm/sratom-0.2.0.tar.bz2 c03cf2849186818610ffe889be4f5b55 sratom-0.2.0.tar.bz2 c03cf2849186818610ffe889be4f5b55 srpm/sratom-0.2.0.tar.bz2 - Package fail to build due to missing BuildRequires: python ./waf configure -v --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64 --mandir=/usr/share/man --datadir=/usr/share --docdir=/usr/share/doc/sratom-devel-0.2.0 --test --docs /usr/bin/env: python: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.3g1rbM (%build) [ Also my rebuild of the lv2 package on which this package depends failed with the same error ] + No locales + Scriptlets call ldconfig + No bundled libraries + Package owns directories it creates + No duplicates in %files + File permissions are sane + Specfile uses macros consistently + Contains code + Documentation is in -devel, though can be considered small + %doc not runtime essential + No static libraries + Headers and develoment library symlinks in -devel + -devel requires main with fully qualified version + No .la files + Package does not own ohters' libraries + Filenames valid UTF8 Summary: Fix American spelling and add missing BR on 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 814924] Review Request: jalv - a simple LV2 host
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814924 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert 2012-04-22 15:36:19 EDT --- Fedora Review jalv 2012-04-22 $ rpmlint jalv*.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Package named according to guidelines + Specfile named after package + Package license (MIT) is Fedora approved + Package license mateches license statements in sources + License file (COPYING) included as %doc + Specfile is written in readable American English + Package source matches upstream: $ md5sum jalv-1.0.0.tar.bz2 jalv-srpm/jalv-1.0.0.tar.bz2 f20f81dbb437f4e4ea10e00694f6cc4d jalv-1.0.0.tar.bz2 f20f81dbb437f4e4ea10e00694f6cc4d srpm/jalv-1.0.0.tar.bz2 - Package fails to compile due to several missing build requires: BuildRequires: python BuildRequires: suil-devel >= 0.6.0 BuildRequires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel [ Also my rebuild of the lilv package on which this package depends failed due to missing build requires on python and python-devel ] + No locales + No shared libraries + No bundled libraries + No duplicates in %files + Package owns directories it creates + File permissions are sane + Specfile uses macros consistently + Contains code + Documentation is small - need not be in subpackage + %doc not runtime essential + No static libraries + No development files + No subpackages + No libtool archives + Package does not own others' directories + Filenames valid UTF8 Summary: Only the missing build requires, otherwise OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #24 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2012-04-22 15:29:03 EDT --- Off course. Just add rm -rf deps just after %setup line. Then package fail to build. And you may start work to deal with problems to solve it with system libraries. I can say it may be very hard work in some cases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815135] New: Review Request: atf - Automated Testing Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: atf - Automated Testing Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815135 Summary: Review Request: atf - Automated Testing Framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j...@julipedia.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/jmmv/fedora/atf.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/jmmv/fedora/atf-0.15-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: ATF is a testing framework: it provides libraries for C, C++ and sh to aid developers in writing tests, and it includes a set of tools to allow end users to run such tests in an automated manner (without having to have developer-only tools installed!). ATF is the testing framework currently used in the NetBSD operating system. - A few random things: * The end-user tools included in ATF are deprecated in favor of Kyua, although the libraries are alive and will still be for a while. A package for Kyua itself will be coming "soon" after this one. * One thing that makes ATF different from other testing frameworks is that its tools are designed to be able to run "installed tests". The installation of tests is controversial because the location that ATF currently expects is not within the expectations of the LSB nor the directory structure of Fedora. Because I would like to make an initial package for Fedora available, I have chosen to NOT install any of the tests provided by ATF. This way, I can leave the controversial decision for a latter stage, at which point we can make a new revision of the package to include new subpackages to provide the tests. Some context can be found in this discussion: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-February/008128.html The installation of tests is, of course, optional. The current package works just fine and allows users to develop their own tests using the libraries. * Here is the output of rpmlint: SPECS/atf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://kyua.googlecode.com/files/atf-0.15.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found atf.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://kyua.googlecode.com/files/atf-0.15.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found atf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/atf-config libatf-c++.x86_64: W: no-documentation libatf-c.x86_64: W: no-documentation 9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. The warning about invalid-url is expected and can be ignored. Not sure if the no-documentation warning is important for the subpackages. There is nothing useful that I could install... The warning about atf-config is not accurate, because atf-config is a tool for users to query the current configuration of ATF; it's not the same as "pkg-config". Wish I'd tag this condition in the spec file itself to permanently suppress the warning, but rpmlint does not seem to support this. * The 'atf' package contains a long description, while all the subpackages contain a tiny description. I think it'd be nice if all of these subdescriptions contained the generic description of ATF. However, I'm not sure if that's desirable (standard practice), or if there is a way to do it without having to copy/paste the same text multiple times. And, as usual, thanks for the 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #23 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 15:21:54 EDT --- Cool how i do that? in the %setup? what flag i need to add to do that? can u help me? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #22 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2012-04-22 15:13:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > what bundle libs? what u mean? i dont see any bundle libs there man. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries (In reply to comment #19) > So how can we fix this issue? I think you may start from deleting deps directory in %setup and then try build 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #21 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 15:09:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > what bundle libs? what u mean? i dont see any bundle libs there man. Adrian, take a closer look at the contents of the "deps" directory. I see several libraries there (v8, openssl, etc). Does Node.js link against them? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #20 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 15:03:03 EDT --- what bundle libs? what u mean? i dont see any bundle libs there man. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #19 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 15:02:13 EDT --- So how can we fix this 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 815015] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815015 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-04-22 14:53:24 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 14:53:24 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 815018 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815017] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815017 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-04-22 14:53:32 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 14:53:32 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 815018 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 14:53:32 EDT --- *** Bug 815017 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 14:53:24 EDT --- *** Bug 815015 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #16 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2012-04-22 14:49:43 EDT --- No. Not all so easy unfortunately. Fedora does not permits bundled libs at all - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries . Only in some explicitly granted exceptions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177
--- Comment #14 from Paul Wouters 2012-04-22 14:45:52 EDT
---
Review: a few fixes needed, but mostly okay.
Install a valid /etc/knot/knot.conf, not a "sample".
Is it possible to open up /etc/knot a little more so non-root can read zone
files? That is only protect files that can contain secrets.
Use port 53 and not 5353 for knot.conf
The init script does not handle recompiling zones. Can you look at the nsd
version of the initscripts and do something similar? Perhaps a second service
that starts before the knotd starts?
Basically, after package install "systemctl start knot.service" should result
in a working/running knot daemon, even if with 0 zones and only listing on port
53 of localhost.
If $OPTIONS should come from /etc/sysconfig/knot can you add that file with
a line #OPTIONS="" to help the user realise that.
The man page refers to info pages? But I don't see those (luckily!)
Upstream should also state in man page that "-i" and not "-d" is the default
(kind of unexpected)
Other then that, the package looks good
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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 %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint knot-1.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
knot.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
knot.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/knot 0644L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint knot-1.0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint knot-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/paul/760177/knot-1.0.3.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 7e7eec7a71f27760ba64b303c03e09c4
MD5SUM upstream package : 7e7eec7a71f27760ba64b303c03e09c4
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in
[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 #9 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 14:40:27 EDT --- there is a new version of enceuntro in my fedorapeople to be tested last msg has the details -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #8 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 14:32:09 EDT --- I added a new versions there with the suggested fixes: Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/encuentro-0.5-1.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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #15 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 14:24:22 EDT --- Ok i will add this: License:MIT/BSD/GPLv3/APACHE It will fix the 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2012-04-22 14:16:52 EDT --- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911#c24 [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - tools/doctool/markdown.js is Released under MIT license and Copyright 2009-2010 Dominic Baggott and Ash Berli You do not delete this file. As it is not client-side JavaScript I think we can't easy bundle it. - src/platform_darwin_proctitle.cc, has code taken from the Chromium project copyright Google Inc. and released with the BSD license. - tools/closure_linter is copyrighted by The Closure Linter Authors and Google Inc and is released under the Apache license. Also had not deleted in %prep. - doc/sh_main.js, doc/api_assets/sh_main.js, doc/api_assets/sh_javascript.min.js, doc/sh_javascript.min.js SHJS - Syntax Highlighting in JavaScript^M Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 gnom...@users.sourceforge.net^M License: http://shjs.sourceforge.net/doc/gplv3.html - test/internet/testcfg.py - test/message/testcfg.py - test/pummel/testcfg.py - test/simple/testcfg.py - tools/cpplint.py - tools/js2c.py - tools/test.py Copyright 2008 the V8 project authors. BSD License? - tools/doctool // Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Dominic Baggott // Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Ash Berlin There also bundled http-parser and other in directory deps (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732552#c7) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732552#c31 mention bundled "ev/eio stuff". As reviewer one of previous request I'm interesting move forward. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784145] Review Request: libomxil-bellagio - OpenMAX Integration Layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784145 Niels de Vos changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784145] Review Request: libomxil-bellagio - OpenMAX Integration Layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784145
--- Comment #1 from Niels de Vos 2012-04-22 13:49:12 EDT ---
Created attachment 579325
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=579325
Patch to fix comile errors with -Werror
Here is the review, please correct any deficiencies and post an updated spec
and src.rpm:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm libomxil-bellagio.spec
libomxil-bellagio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> code
cs, code-cs, codex
libomxil-bellagio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionalities
-> functionalists, functionality, functionalist
libomxil-bellagio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alsa -> Alas,
alas, Alisa
libomxil-bellagio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aac -> AC, Ac,
ac
libomxil-bellagio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ogg -> Gog, egg,
org
libomxil-bellagio.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://ignum.dl.sourceforge.net/project/omxil/omxil/Bellagio%200.9.3/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3.tar.gz
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs ->
code cs, code-cs, codex
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
functionalities -> functionalists, functionality, functionalist
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alsa -> Alas,
alas, Alisa
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aac -> AC,
Ac, ac
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ogg -> Gog,
egg, org
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/bellagio/libomxclocksrc.so
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/bellagio/libomxaudio_effects.so
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/omxloaders/libomxdynamicloader.so
libomxil-bellagio.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/bellagio/libomxvideosched.so
libomxil-bellagio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libomxil-bellagio.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://ignum.dl.sourceforge.net/project/omxil/omxil/Bellagio%200.9.3/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3.tar.gz
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.
The "spelling-error" can be ignored, looks fine to me (although I'm not a
native English speaker).
The "devel-file-in-non-devel-package" seem to be caused by the .so symlink. I
do not know if that symlink is required for correct functioning. If not, please
remove those symlinks, if they are required, you may ignore the warning (the
.so are in their own directory).
"invalid-url" needs to be fixed, see below.
"no-documentation" in the -devel package seems fine as well, there is no
developers documentation available in the sources either. The OpenMAX
specification seems to be documented at http://www.khronos.org/openmax.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
Please use a URL as described here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
$ sha1sum libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3.tar.gz SOURCES/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3.tar.gz
04afd1bde078afa5a03190b6c6865406e2bd01d8 libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3.tar.gz
cff7692238a860f22a67ca6f0efcbdc63922f426
SOURCES/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3.tar.gz
To download, use this to keep the time of the archive:
$ wget -m -nd \
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/omxil/omxil/Bellagio%200.9.3/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3.tar.gz
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Locally built with mock on x86_64 and on Fedora ARM (as this is blocking the
ARMTracker Bug):
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=752390
Attaching a patch that makes it possible to build with -Werror, it would make
it possible to remove the first sed-expression. Maybe you can provide this
patch upstream (I tried but am not able to attach patches there).
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependenci
[Bug 784145] Review Request: libomxil-bellagio - OpenMAX Integration Layer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784145 Niels de Vos changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Patch URL||https://sourceforge.net/tra ||cker/?func=detail&aid=34778 ||69&group_id=160680&atid=816 ||817 CC||nde...@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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #13 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 13:20:35 EDT --- which bundled libs? please specify or clearify that. I dont see any bundle libs there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@hubbitus.info --- Comment #12 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2012-04-22 13:01:54 EDT --- How you deal with bundled libs? First two attempts fail on that (see linked duplicates). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #11 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 12:55:15 EDT --- I built it again with all the fixed that you suggest. http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/nodejs.spec http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-0.6.15-1.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 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 #16 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-04-22 12:46:28 EDT --- http://www.geofrogger.net/review/saga.spec http://www.geofrogger.net/review/saga-2.0.8-2.fc16.src.rpm Notice, this won't build in Rawhide because of issues with Proj 4.8 (see specfile) and because libpolyclipping is still on 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #10 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 12:13:00 EDT --- I had to add into the spec this way: %build ./configure --prefix=/usr make Because many of the flags in %configure didnt work, like this: + ./configure --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --prefix=/usr waf-light: error: no such option: --build I buiit a new spec and a new src.rpm I will upload into my fedora people replacing the old ones -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812561] Review Request: python-ipdb - IPython enabled Python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812561
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Spura 2012-04-22
12:08:07 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > This means you are shipping an unreleased version and therefore need the
> > proper
> > pre-release naming convention:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
>
> I'm not sure I know what you mean here. Should I change the Release to be:
>
> Release:0.2.dev.%{checkout}%{?dist}
A "Release: $number" refers to a proper released version of the package and
"Release: 0.$number" means, it is a pre-release version.
So it looks from the package version, that you packaged 0.7, which is not
released yet and therefore needs an "0." in the Release macro.
> Having dev and the checkout info seems redundant to me, but after rereading
> the
> naming guidelines I guess that's the most correct way to do it.
/me too. I'd left "dev" out of the release:
Release:0.2.${date}git%{?dist}
or
Release:0.2.${date}git${commitid}%{?dist}
> >
> >
> > Why aren't you using the released 0.6.2?
> > It seems run{,call,eval} and the python3 support are new since then.
> >
>
> I wanted to use the most recent version available, 0.6.1 was released in
> 10/2011 (I assume you mean 0.6.1, as there is no 0.6.2).
Yes, sure...
> >
> > It would be great to ask upstream, what license exactly is meant with GPL as
> > "GPL" seems to be bad:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL
> >
> > As upstream doesn't add a LICENSE/COPYING file, it's a SHOULD anyway to ask
> > them to add one...
>
> I'll see if upstream will add this and clarify the license.
Great. Most likely they mean GPLv2+ with it, but maybe only GPLv2...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814916] Review Request: sratom - a C library for serializing LV2 plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814916 Orcan Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||814542 --- Comment #5 from Orcan Ogetbil 2012-04-22 11:43:11 EDT --- I made a full review on this, but I see that Mattias is already assigned to the bug. I'll post my findings anyways: ! rpmlint says: sratom.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialisation -> serialization, sensationalist, sensationalism sratom.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serialise -> serialize, serial, aerialist sratom.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serialising -> serializing, serialization There was a requirement that says the spec file must be written in American English, so I guess we should use serializ* * Need to add BuildRequires: serd-devel >= 0.14.0 Other than the above, the package is good to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Orcan Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||814916 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812561] Review Request: python-ipdb - IPython enabled Python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812561
--- Comment #4 from Brian C. Lane 2012-04-22 11:29:30 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 0.7 wasn't released yet as in setup.py is this:
> "version = '0.7dev'"
> and commit d404542e says:
> "Back to development: 0.7"
> and there is no tag, that says 0.7
> and there are no downloads available with version 0.7
>
> This means you are shipping an unreleased version and therefore need the
> proper
> pre-release naming convention:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
I'm not sure I know what you mean here. Should I change the Release to be:
Release:0.2.dev.%{checkout}%{?dist}
Having dev and the checkout info seems redundant to me, but after rereading the
naming guidelines I guess that's the most correct way to do it.
>
>
> Why aren't you using the released 0.6.2?
> It seems run{,call,eval} and the python3 support are new since then.
>
I wanted to use the most recent version available, 0.6.1 was released in
10/2011 (I assume you mean 0.6.1, as there is no 0.6.2).
>
> It would be great to ask upstream, what license exactly is meant with GPL as
> "GPL" seems to be bad:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL
>
> As upstream doesn't add a LICENSE/COPYING file, it's a SHOULD anyway to ask
> them to add one...
I'll see if upstream will add this and clarify the license.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes 2012-04-22 11:24:33 EDT --- That sounds like the configure script might not actually be an autotools configure script? If it isn't then %configure won't work and you'll have to investigate what options it takes to put things in the right places. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #8 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 11:18:10 EDT --- ./configure --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info waf-light: error: no such option: --build how can exclude --build or fix this? what flag i can use for %configure to avoid or fix this 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #7 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 11:11:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Yes, using openssl-devel instead of openssl-static is the correct way to build > against openssl. > > The correct prefix is /usr but if you use the %configure macro then that, and > lots of other Fedora appropriate settings, will be done for you. Just %configure without any flag? Many thanks Tom -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes 2012-04-22 10:59:50 EDT --- Yes, using openssl-devel instead of openssl-static is the correct way to build against openssl. The correct prefix is /usr but if you use the %configure macro then that, and lots of other Fedora appropriate settings, will be done for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 --- Comment #5 from Adrian Alves 2012-04-22 10:37:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Some informal comments from a quick look at the spec file: > > * The BuildRequire of openssl-static is a red flag as you shouldn't be static > linking to other packages. probably I had to change it for openssl-devel? > > * You are packaging files in /usr/local which is wrong - you probably want to > use %configure instead of ./configure so that the prefix is set correctly. whats the correct whay? where i need to packaging the files? whats the correct prefix to %configure? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732552] Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for V8 JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732552 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #32 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 10:22:49 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 815018 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 10:22:49 EDT --- *** Bug 732552 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov 2012-04-22 10:22:18 EDT --- *** Bug 634911 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build 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=815018 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes 2012-04-22 10:19:43 EDT --- Some informal comments from a quick look at the spec file: * The BuildRequire of openssl-static is a red flag as you shouldn't be static linking to other packages. * You are packaging files in /usr/local which is wrong - you probably want to use %configure instead of ./configure so that the prefix is set correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815098] New: Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - maven-processor-plugin Maven Mojo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - maven-processor-plugin Maven Mojo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 Summary: Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - maven-processor-plugin Maven Mojo Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-processor-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-processor-plugin-2.0.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: A maven plugin to process annotation for jdk6 at compile time This plugin helps to use from maven the new annotation processing provided by JDK6 integrated in java compiler This plugin could be considered the 'alter ego' of maven apt plugin. Tested on:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4013219 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810059] Review request: opencl-utils - Useful OpenCL tools and utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810059
--- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-22 08:53:15
EDT ---
A (hopefully last) yet another followup:
- For comment #18, do s/%{_libdir}/%{_includedir}/. How could I write that?
- Example files are documentation. Please install them in %{_docdir} instead of
%{_datadir}/%{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 728302] Review Request: pjproject - Libraries written in C language for building embedded/non-embedded VoIP applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728302 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info 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 728302] Review Request: pjproject - Libraries written in C language for building embedded/non-embedded VoIP applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728302 --- Comment #45 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2012-04-22 08:21:34 EDT --- I can review that. But as I think there unresolved stop issue libresample/resample? @Mario, would you like ask exception for that because it is not system library and modified program as Tom point before?? @Peter do you willing post your WebRTC to review? @Mario, did you try link it with WebRTC instead of iLBC or ask upstream authors? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815060] New: Review Request: classmate - ClassMate
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: classmate - ClassMate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060 Summary: Review Request: classmate - ClassMate Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: punto...@libero.it QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classmate.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classmate-0.5.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Library for introspecting types with full generic information including resolving of field and method types. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4013041 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812561] Review Request: python-ipdb - IPython enabled Python debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812561
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2012-04-22
04:56:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> You're right the test is pretty useless at the moment, so I'll comment that
> out. I'm not sure if there's a good way to run an automated test on an
> interactive debugger.
I hope it'll be enough to just test the single test with nosetests, when I'll
update ipython... ipython-0.13 will come in the next month and don't know yet,
if I'll do a f17 update too.
> HISTORY.txt comes from upstream. Should I patch it to say 0.7-2.20120414git?
0.7 wasn't released yet as in setup.py is this:
"version = '0.7dev'"
and commit d404542e says:
"Back to development: 0.7"
and there is no tag, that says 0.7
and there are no downloads available with version 0.7
This means you are shipping an unreleased version and therefore need the proper
pre-release naming convention:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Why aren't you using the released 0.6.2?
It seems run{,call,eval} and the python3 support are new since then.
It would be great to ask upstream, what license exactly is meant with GPL as
"GPL" seems to be bad:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL
As upstream doesn't add a LICENSE/COPYING file, it's a SHOULD anyway to ask
them to add one...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812702] Review Request: ghc-SHA - Message digest functions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812702 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen 2012-04-22 04:36:57 EDT --- Thank you very much for reviewing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-SHA Short Description: Message digest functions Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 f15 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812751] Review Request: jglobus - Globus Java client libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812751
--- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones 2012-04-22
03:54:48 EDT ---
We are looking pretty good here. Just need a clarification on the license,
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
jglobus.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Globus -> Globs, Globes, Glob's
jglobus.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jglobus-2.0.4.tar.gz
jglobus-gram.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Globus -> Globs, Globes,
Glob's
jglobus-gram.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Globus -> Globs,
Globes, Glob's
jglobus-gram.noarch: W: no-documentation
jglobus-gridftp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Globus -> Globs,
Globes, Glob's
jglobus-gridftp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Globus ->
Globs, Globes, Glob's
jglobus-gridftp.noarch: W: no-documentation
jglobus-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Globus -> Globs, Globes,
Glob's
jglobus-gss.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Globus -> Globs,
Globes, Glob's
jglobus-gss.noarch: W: no-documentation
jglobus-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs,
Java-docs, Avocados
jglobus-jsse.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Globus -> Globs, Globes,
Glob's
jglobus-jsse.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Globus -> Globs,
Globes, Glob's
jglobus-jsse.noarch: W: no-documentation
jglobus-ssl-proxies.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Globus -> Globs,
Globes, Glob's
jglobus-ssl-proxies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Globus ->
Globs, Globes, Glob's
jglobus-ssl-proxies.noarch: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
See comment 3
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
See Comment 3
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[!] 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.
(if there is a license in the source or generated we should include it)
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Git OK
MD5SUM this package:
MD5SUM upstream package:
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[!] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
(See comment 3)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed
[Bug 812751] Review Request: jglobus - Globus Java client libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812751
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones 2012-04-22
03:34:16 EDT ---
Hi Mattias
I'have had a quick look and come up with a few things:
- use %{name} macros in URL,Sources, Description tags
- comment explaining patches
-
jglobus-2.0.4/ssl-proxies/src/main/java/org/globus/tools/GridCertRequest.java
license is MIT
- where can I find where the license file is packaged? It either needs to be
in a base package that all subpackages require, or copied into each
/usr/share/doc for each 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
