[Bug 723779] Review Request: lwjgl - LightWeight Java Game Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723779 --- Comment #3 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazi...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 03:36:57 EDT --- Thanks for reviewing; I have currently no enough time to update this package to the latest version, so I just updated the specfile to build successfully on current rawhide (and fixed source url and the typo in package description). Fix was very easy because what changed was the target directory for jni files, starting with F16. Spec URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/lwjgl/lwjgl.spec SRPM URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/lwjgl/lwjgl-2.7.1-2.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 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 #46 from Mario Santagiuliana fed...@marionline.it 2012-04-23 03:45:37 EDT --- Pavel, thank you for you interest. I think that ask an exception is the best thing...the library was modified and pjsip developers are releasing a new version of pjproject and I understand that have a lot of new features and functionalities...so this version will not be update...and a patch to use libresample means to change a lot of code (I am not a C/C++ developer, I don't know if it could be patch easly). I will try to link WebRTC using Peter package...but there is not a review request yet. Thank you! -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #47 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2012-04-23 05:23:26 EDT --- If exception will be granted and Peter will not add WebRTC into Fedora, I may help with it. But do not forward so, go step by step. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build 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=809950
Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||socho...@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2012-04-23
05:29:18 EDT ---
The release tag is still incorrect. Final version should be something like:
1.0-0.1.rc1
You should not put it after %{?dist} and you should preserve update paths all
the time.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2012-04-23 05:42:00 EDT --- Many thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: voms-api-java Short Description: Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API Owners: ellert Branches: f15 f16 f17 el5 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 815001] Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815001 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|urgent |medium Severity|urgent |medium --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2012-04-23 05:49:16 EDT --- There's no SRPM url. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815001] Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815001 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-04-23 05:55:54 EDT --- Assuming, he meant SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~spstarr/packages/opennebula-3.2.1-1.src.rpm Shawn: The fedora-review-flag is set by the reviewer, not the reporter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build 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=809950 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 2012-04-23 06:05:36 EDT --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle-1.0-3.rc.1.fc16.src.rpm - edit Release tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811601] Review Request: openstack-utils - Helper utilities for OpenStack services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811601 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811601] Review Request: openstack-utils - Helper utilities for OpenStack services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811601 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811601] Review Request: openstack-utils - Helper utilities for OpenStack services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811601
--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 06:18:12
EDT ---
General comment: I think you should add a comment about how Fedora
itself is the upstream for this package. Also I think man pages would
improve this package.
- rpmlint output
Some notable issues raised by rpmlint:
openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-config 0775L
openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-status 0775L
openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-demo-install 0775L
openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-db 0775L
openstack-utils.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/openstack-utils-2012.1/LICENSE
openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-demo-install
openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-config
openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-status
openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-db
I'm not sure what this one means:
openstack-utils.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/bin/openstack-config
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
n/a upstream sources match sources in the srpm
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
n/a BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
n/a use %global instead of %define
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
n/a reviewer should build the package in mock
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on 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 #5 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2012-04-23 07:31:07 EDT --- The packaging guidelines say: 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. There is no separate license text file in the git checkout, only license statements in the source files. The guideline above says that the packager should not create one if it is missing. It was well spotted to find that one of the source file had a different license than all the others. I have changed the specfile accordingly. I have also changed to use macros in more places than before, as requested. http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/jglobus-2.0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/jglobus.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 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 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 07:42:33 EDT --- Thanks for clarifying. This package is 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 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 --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 07:46:34 EDT --- SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/sratom.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/sratom-0.2.0-2.fc16.src.rpm I've addressed the issues you picked up. Apologies for the missing BR. I've discovered a bug in the build tests for i686, and this will currently fail in mock. Seems to be OK for x86_64. I'll work through this with upstream and get it patched. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 07:48:30 EDT --- SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/jalv.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/jalv-1.0.0-2.fc16.src.rpm Thanks. The BR's have been addressed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build 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=809950 --- Comment #8 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 08:12:52 EDT --- It was not an accident that I put release tag as: 0.1.rc1 Let's keep your release tag and see what happens: You package gradle-1.0-3.rc.1.fc16 Upstream releases final package, you package it and you would have to reset release tag since it's new upstream, so you get: gradle-1.0-1.fc16 $ rpmdev-vercmp gradle-1.0-3.rc.1.fc16 gradle-1.0-1.rc.2.fc16 gradle-1.0-3.rc.1.fc16 gradle-1.0-1.fc16 So you break upgrade path. Instead you should have: gradle-1.0-0.1.rc1.fc16 Then with new upstream: gradle-1.0-1.fc16 In case there would be rc2: gradle-1.0-0.1.rc2.fc16 so we would have: $ rpmdev-vercmp gradle-1.0-0.1.rc1.fc16 gradle-1.0-0.1.rc2.fc16 gradle-1.0-0.1.rc1.fc16 gradle-1.0-0.1.rc2.fc16 And everything keeps working. If the upstream would release something that would break upgrade path before releasing final 1.0, you can just raise release from 0.1.X to 0.2.X and continue. Don't forget to check with rpmdev-vercmp in between. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 08:36:53 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 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 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 08:38:26 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 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 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 08:38:06 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 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 ade...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 08:56:53 EDT
---
Hi,
First Review :
[PASS] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
rpmlint lcg-infosites-3.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
lcg-infosites.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
lcg-infosites.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
lcg-infosites.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
lcg-infosites.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
lcg-infosites.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
lcg-infosites.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
lcg-infosites.src: W: invalid-url Source0: lcg-infosites-3.1.0.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
- minors warning, all comes from the svn checkout command
[TRUE] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[TRUE] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[TRUE] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[TRUE] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
- ASL 2.0
[TRUE] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[TRUE] 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.
[TRUE] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[TRUE] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[TRUE] 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.
- tardiff lcg-infosites-3.1.0.tar.gz
lcg-infosites-3.1.0-2.fc16.src/lcg-infosites-3.1.0.tar.gz
[TRUE] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4014975
[N/A] 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.
[TRUE] 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.
[N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[N/A] 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.
[TRUE] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[N/A] 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.
[TRUE] 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.
[TRUE] 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)
[TRUE] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[TRUE] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[TRUE] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[N/A] 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).
[N/A] 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.
[N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[N/A] MUST: If a
[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 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||awill...@redhat.com --- Comment #25 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 09:33:02 EDT --- It's worth looking at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732552 and probably talking to T.C. Hollingsworth. I suspect you're doing a lot of unnecessary duplication of work, here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807566] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-iok - gnome-shell extension for iok application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807566 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 09:39:30 EDT --- gnome-shell-extension-iok-0.20120423-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-extension-iok-0.20120423-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 10:06:33 EDT ---
You forgot to add the README.txt to exclude.
It should be something like
48 %doc LICENSE.txt README.txt
49 %exclude %{drupal_modules}/%{modname}/LICENSE.txt
50 %exclude %{drupal_modules}/%{modname}/README.txt
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815399] New: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AuthorRequires - Declare author-only dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AuthorRequires - Declare author-only dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815399 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AuthorRequires - Declare author-only dependencies Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Module-Install-AuthorRequires/perl-Module-Install-AuthorRequires.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Module-Install-AuthorRequires/perl-Module-Install-AuthorRequires-0.02-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Modules often have optional requirements, for example dependencies that are useful for (optional) tests, but not required for the module to work properly. Simply using this module author_requires command allows to specify such developer specific dependencies in a proper way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811418] Review Request: rubygem-hydra - distributes tests for speed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811418
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hicks mhi...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 10:31:50 EDT ---
Thanks for the review! I've updated the following here:
Spec URL: http://matthicksj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-hydra.spec
SRPM URL:
http://matthicksj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-hydra-0.24.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
I couldn't find a good example in the packaging guidelines of how to properly
do the macros properly for EPEL - if you have an example, I'd be happy to add
that, otherwise, getting into Fedora is probably a good start.
I made the following changes:
- Removed .document from the builddir
- Added %doc to TODO and %{docdir}
- Set 755 to the test scripts
Around the tests, I hit the same problem there, so they aren't running. Also,
I went back and forth about running sed to remove some of the rpmlint warnings
on the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding (see [1]) but saw some discussion about
that potentially breaking things (see [2]) and decided not to. Any suggestions
there?
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728256
Thanks again
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815428] New: Review Request: perl-Module-Manifest-Skip - MANIFEST.SKIP Manangement for Modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Manifest-Skip - MANIFEST.SKIP Manangement for Modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815428 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Manifest-Skip - MANIFEST.SKIP Manangement for Modules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Module-Manifest-Skip/perl-Module-Manifest-Skip.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Module-Manifest-Skip/perl-Module-Manifest-Skip-0.16-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: CPAN module authors use a MANIFEST.SKIP file to exclude certain well known files from getting put into a generated MANIFEST file, which would cause them to go into the final distribution package. The packaging tools try to automatically skip things for you, but if you add one of your own entries, you have to add all the common ones yourself. This module attempts to make all of this boring process as simple and reliable as possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811601] Review Request: openstack-utils - Helper utilities for OpenStack services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811601 Pádraig Brady pbr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbr...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Pádraig Brady pbr...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 11:31:21 EDT --- Thanks a lot for the review. I've updated the package at the above links. I've made it a bit more standard by storing the upstream as a subproject of the fedora-openstack support repos at https://github.com/fedora-openstack/openstack-utils The devel-file-in-non-devel-package warning looks bogus. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815437] New: Generate a MANIFEST.SKIP fileReview Request: perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Generate a MANIFEST.SKIP fileReview Request: perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815437 Summary: Generate a MANIFEST.SKIP fileReview Request: perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip/perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip/perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip-0.20-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This module generates a MANIFEST.SKIP file for you (using Module::Manifest::Skip) that contains the common files that people do not want in their MANIFEST files. The SKIP file is generated each time that you (the module author) run Makefile.PL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815428] Review Request: perl-Module-Manifest-Skip - MANIFEST.SKIP Manangement for Modules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815428 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||815437 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815437] perl-Module-Install-ManifestSkip - Generate a MANIFEST.SKIP file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815437 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||815428 Summary|Generate a MANIFEST.SKIP|perl-Module-Install-Manifes |fileReview Request: |tSkip - Generate a |perl-Module-Install-Manifes |MANIFEST.SKIP file |tSkip - | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811601] Review Request: openstack-utils - Helper utilities for OpenStack services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811601 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 12:00:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) General comment: I think you should add a comment about how Fedora itself is the upstream for this package. Also I think man pages would improve this package. Both of these issues are fixed. - rpmlint output Some notable issues raised by rpmlint: openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-config 0775L openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-status 0775L openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-demo-install 0775L openstack-utils.src: W: strange-permission openstack-db 0775L Fixed by using `install -m' in spec file. openstack-utils.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/openstack-utils-2012.1/LICENSE Fixed upstream. openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-demo-install openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-config openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-status openstack-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openstack-db Fixed by adding man pages for all utilities. I'm not sure what this one means: openstack-utils.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/openstack-config We agree this is not important. = This package is APPROVED by rjones = -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815001] Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815001 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com 2012-04-23 12:03:35 EDT --- Well, I set the flag to initiate someone to do the reviewing. It's '?' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815511] Review Request: python-django-lint - Analyzes Django code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815511 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815511] New: Review Request: python-django-lint - Analyzes Django code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-django-lint - Analyzes Django code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815511 Summary: Review Request: python-django-lint - Analyzes Django code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mru...@matthias-runge.de 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.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-lint.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-lint-0.13-12.fc17.src.rpm Description: Django Lint is a static analysis tool that checks (or lints) projects and applications that use the Django web development framework. It reports on common programming errors and bad code smells, including checking for null-able CharField field types, the use of brittle or deprecated Django features (such as auto_now_add) as well as the absence of recommended options in settings.py. It aims to encourage the development of high-quality re-usable Django applications. Django Lint is currently implemented as a wrapper around PyLint. please note, this is a review request required for package rename. koji scratchbuild http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4015900 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815521] New: Review Request: python-django-extra-form-fields - Additional form fields for Django applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-django-extra-form-fields - Additional form fields for Django applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815521 Summary: Review Request: python-django-extra-form-fields - Additional form fields for Django applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mru...@matthias-runge.de 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.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-extra-form-fields.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-extra-form-fields-0.0.1-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: Additional form fields to use in Django applications: NextUrlField - add to forms that need to store url of next page get_next_url - utility function to extract next url from the request object UserNameField - field to enter user name - allows unique username site-wide UserEmailField - allows unique email address site-wide if EMAIL_UNIQUE setting is True please note: this is a review request required for package rename koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4015974 [mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-django-extra-form-fields.spec ../RPMS/noarch/python-django-extra-form-fields-0.0.1-3.fc17.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/python-django-extra-form-fields-0.0.1-3.fc17.src.rpm python-django-extra-form-fields.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US url - URL, curl, purl python-django-extra-form-fields.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US username - user name, user-name, surname python-django-extra-form-fields.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US url - URL, curl, purl python-django-extra-form-fields.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US username - user name, user-name, surname 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815521] Review Request: python-django-extra-form-fields - Additional form fields for Django 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=815521 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806446] Re-Review Request: musique (replacing minitunes) - A music player designed by and for people that love music
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806446 --- Comment #8 from Germán Racca gra...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 14:53:29 EDT --- Hi Gregor, Here follow the changes I made to the package: - Dropped gcc-c++ from BR - Removed bundled qtsingleapplication - Added patch to use system qtsingleapplication - Added qtsingleapplication-devel as BR - Added desktop-file-utils as BR - Removed wrong category form desktop file - Dropped minitunes-1.0-gcc47.patch - Added icon scriptlets - Dropped INSTALL from %%doc - Added patch to fix include in 2 cpp files I also had to create a very simple patch because of the includes, you can take a look at it, because it couldn't compile after removing the bundled library. The only thing I didn't do was checking the translations, but I'm creating a VM right now to do that. What I'm supposed to do? Do I have to change the language of the whole Fedora and restart Gnome every time, and see if Musique is in that language? Because I still don't understand what is wrong with those locale files. Spec: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/musique.spec SRPM: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/musique-1.1-6.fc16.src.rpm Rawhide -- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4015894 F - 17 -- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4015941 F - 16 -- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4015982 All the best, 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 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build 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=809950 --- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 2012-04-23 16:09:24 EDT --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle-1.0-0.3.rc.1.fc16.src.rpm - edit Release tag sorry for the incovenience -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 16:10:18 EDT --- voms-2.0.7-2.fc16,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voms-2.0.7-2.fc16,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 16:10:29 EDT --- voms-2.0.7-2.fc15,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voms-2.0.7-2.fc15,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 16:09:46 EDT --- voms-2.0.7-2.el6,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voms-2.0.7-2.el6,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.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 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 16:09:24 EDT --- voms-2.0.7-2.fc17,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voms-2.0.7-2.fc17,voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814978] Review Request: shrinkwrap - A simple mechanism to assemble Java archives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814978 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 2012-04-23 16:18:05 EDT --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/shrinkwrap.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/shrinkwrap-1.1.0-0.1.alpha.1.fc16.src.rpm - edit Release tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 #9 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 16:37:01 EDT --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-views_bonus.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-views_bonus-1.1-4.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 815566] Review Request: mybatis - SQL Mapping Framework for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815566 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||815394 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815566] New: Review Request: mybatis - SQL Mapping Framework for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mybatis - SQL Mapping Framework for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815566 Summary: Review Request: mybatis - SQL Mapping Framework for Java 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/mybatis.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mybatis-3.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The MyBatis data mapper framework makes it easier to use a relational database with object-oriented applications. MyBatis couples objects with stored procedures or SQL statements using a XML descriptor or annotations. Simplicity is the biggest advantage of the MyBatis data mapper over object relational mapping tools. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812573] Review Request: mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good - Cross compiled GStreamer plug-ins good
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812573 --- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-04-23 17:26:59 EDT --- While testing this package I noticed a difference in the configure output between the win32 and win64 build: win32: configure: *** checking feature: bz2 library for matroska *** checking for BZ2_bzCompress in -lbz2... no win64: configure: *** checking feature: bz2 library for matroska *** checking for BZ2_bzCompress in -lbz2... yes I suspect this is caused by the fact that exported symbols (with the __stdcall calling convention) on win32 are prefixed with an _ which doesn't happen for win64 and autoconf is too dumb to include the real bzlib.h header. You might want to look into this and workaround this autoconf behaviour -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812573] Review Request: mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good - Cross compiled GStreamer plug-ins good
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812573
--- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-04-23
17:35:08 EDT ---
In your spec file I also noticed something odd. The %mingw_configure call
includes this parameter: -disable-shout2. Shouldn't this be --disable-shout2 ?
Now that you've dropped the -static package, could you please add this to the
mingw32 subpackage:
Obsoletes: mingw32-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.31.3%{dist}
and this one to the mingw64 subpackage:
Obsoletes: mingw64-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.31.3%{dist}
These are needed for people who did install the
mingw{32,64}-gstreamer-plugins-good-static packages from the testing repo and
try to upgrade to your Fedora version
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812573] Review Request: mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good - Cross compiled GStreamer plug-ins good
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812573
--- Comment #7 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-04-23
17:37:04 EDT ---
On second thought, the %{dist} part shouldn't be necessary so it can be removed
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812573] Review Request: mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good - Cross compiled GStreamer plug-ins good
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812573 --- Comment #8 from Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com 2012-04-23 17:52:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) I suspect this is caused by the fact that exported symbols (with the __stdcall calling convention) on win32 are prefixed with an _ which doesn't happen for win64 and autoconf is too dumb to include the real bzlib.h header. You might want to look into this and workaround this autoconf behaviour Thanks for catching this, however, I will argue that it is a bzip2 packaging issue. It isn't a case of prefix but suffix. The 32-bit bzip2 package contains ats. eg: BZ2_bzCompress@8 Other 32-bit MinGW packages do not use at suffixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812573] Review Request: mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good - Cross compiled GStreamer plug-ins good
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812573
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 18:03:03
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Obsoletes: mingw32-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.31.3%{dist}
and this one to the mingw64 subpackage:
Obsoletes: mingw64-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.31.3%{dist}
Erik, where did the numbers for the obsoletes come from? The testing repo has:
mingw32-gstreamer-plugins-good-static-0.10.30-4.fc17_cross.noarch.rpm
mingw64-gstreamer-plugins-good-static-0.10.30-4.fc17_cross.noarch.rpm
... so the obsoletes should be:
Obsoletes: mingw32-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.30-5
Obsoletes: mingw64-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.30-5
--
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 812573] Review Request: mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good - Cross compiled GStreamer plug-ins good
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812573 --- Comment #10 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-04-23 18:10:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Erik, where did the numbers for the obsoletes come from? The testing repo has: mingw32-gstreamer-plugins-good-static-0.10.30-4.fc17_cross.noarch.rpm mingw64-gstreamer-plugins-good-static-0.10.30-4.fc17_cross.noarch.rpm ... so the obsoletes should be: Obsoletes: mingw32-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.30-5 Obsoletes: mingw64-gstreamer-plugins-good-static 0.10.30-5 I took the version numbers from the srpm which was initially mentioned in this review ticket. But you're correct, using the version number from the testing repo should be good enough as there shouldn't be any binary rpms of the 0.10.30-5 package (the initial srpm in this review ticket) publicly available -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2012-04-23 18:16:08 EDT --- Many thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jglobus Short Description: Globus Java client libraries Owners: ellert Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813668] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenSSH - Perl SSH client package implemented on top of OpenSSH
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813668 Christos Triantafyllidis christos.triantafylli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808987] Review Request: python-certifi - Mozilla's SSL Certs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808987 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-certifi-0.0.8-2.fc16 |python-certifi-0.0.8-2.el6 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 18:53:55 EDT --- python-certifi-0.0.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806066] Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 18:53:48 EDT --- voms-2.0.7-2.el6, voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795883] Review Request: python-tgcaptcha2 - TurboGears captcha plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795883 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 18:52:29 EDT --- python-tgcaptcha2-0.2.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815583] New: Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815583 Summary: Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maths...@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://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-edit-distance.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-edit-distance-0.2.1-1-fc18.src.rpm Description: Optimized edit distances for fuzzy matching, 10 including Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein algorithms. % lintmock fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ghc-edit-distance.src: W: strange-permission ghc-edit-distance.spec 0640L ghc-edit-distance.src: W: strange-permission edit-distance-0.2.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-edit-distance-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Levenshtein - Liechtenstein ghc-edit-distance-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ghc-edit-distance-doc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Is the -doc Provides/Obsoletes a ghc-rpm-macros 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 815583] Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815583 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||662259(git-annex) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815583] Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815583 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-list@redhat. ||com Alias||ghc-edit-distance -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810781] Review Request: ghc-void - Haskell98 logically uninhabited datatype
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810781 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@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 810781] Review Request: ghc-void - Haskell98 logically uninhabited datatype
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810781 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815583] Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815583 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com Status Whiteboard||Ready 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 815583] Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815583 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 21:17:42 EDT --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-edit-distance/ghc-edit-distance.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-edit-distance/ghc-edit-distance-0.2.1-1-fc18.src.rpm Again, just with less fail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810781] Review Request: ghc-void - Haskell98 logically uninhabited datatype
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810781
--- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com 2012-04-23 21:22:23 EDT ---
Oops, set '+' when I should have set '?'. Moot point now.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/boeckb/misc/code/review/810781/void-0.5.5.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 44846f00aa359ac6a403c7f0234adf16
MD5SUM upstream package : 44846f00aa359ac6a403c7f0234adf16
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[!]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
0.5.5.1 is out.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
External plugins:
Just needs to be updated to 0.5.5.1.
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
[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 peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 21:32:06 EDT --- Built for f18 rawhide. f17 is still on conduit-0.2 and I will probably just update it straight to 0.4 once ghc-void is available so waiting for now with the branches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 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 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 21:52:50 EDT --- ghc-SHA-1.5.0.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-SHA-1.5.0.1-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 21:53:08 EDT --- ghc-SHA-1.5.0.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-SHA-1.5.0.1-1.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 21:53:00 EDT --- ghc-SHA-1.5.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-SHA-1.5.0.1-1.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815583] Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815583 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 22:13:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #0) Is the -doc Provides/Obsoletes a ghc-rpm-macros bug? Well I trying to deprecate ghc-*-doc completely from the namespace since they are no longer used/needed, so it is basically intentional. (doc subpackages were merged into devel for F14.) I think the warning can be waived. Similarly after f15 goes EOL, all ghc-*-prof BRs can be replaced by ghc-*-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810781] Review Request: ghc-void - Haskell98 logically uninhabited datatype
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810781 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-04-23 22:17:52 EDT --- Thanks for reviewing - sure will update to 0.5.5.1 when importing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-void Short Description: Haskell98 logically uninhabited datatype 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 815135] 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815135 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|michel+...@sylvestre.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 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-23 23:17:59 EDT --- ghc-SHA-1.5.0.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809748] Review Request: xz-java - Java implementation of XZ data compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809748 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|xz-java-1.0-2.fc16 |xz-java-1.0-2.fc17 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-24 00:27:00 EDT --- xz-java-1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796465] Review Request: exif - Utility to show EXIF information hidden in JPEG files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796465 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||exif-0.6.20-3.fc17 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-04-24 00:24:27 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-24 00:24:27 EDT --- exif-0.6.20-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michel+...@sylvestre.me Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #16 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me 2012-04-24 00:56:00 EDT --- Tim, are you still happy with the package as updated? I can sponsor Mattia if nobody else has done so. Mattia, just in case, please confirm that you're still interested, as it's been a month. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815624] New: Review Request: xedit - Simple text editor for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xedit - Simple text editor for X https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624 Summary: Review Request: xedit - Simple text editor for X Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@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: kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/xedit.spec SRPM URL: kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/xedit-1.1.2-1.src.rpm Description: Xedit provides a simple text editor for X. This is my first fedora package so I need a sponsor. Using a simple package to get used to fedora buildsystem and follow wiki instructions. My goal is to help in the Science and Technology 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 815624] Review Request: xedit - Simple text editor for X
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815624 pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-04-24 01:55:50 EDT --- For a better use experience with the xedit package, I would also like to have *customization: -color appended to /etc/X11/Xresources from xorg-x11-xinit 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
