[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp-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=817271 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-08 02:09:13 EDT --- Thanks for input. However, note the 'NotReady' whiteboard status: this is a work in progress not ready for 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 818256] Review Request: mingw-spice-gtk - client libraries for SPICE desktop servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818256 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org AssignedTo|fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr |nob...@fedoraproject.org |oject.org | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819528] Review Request: jacoco - Java Code Coverage for Eclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819528 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov 2012-05-08 01:55:25 EDT --- I'll do this 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 719854] Review Request: rubygem-xmlparser-0.6.81-1 - Ruby bindings to the Expat XML parsing 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=719854 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-xmlparser-0.7.2.1-3 ||.fc17 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-05-08 00:20:16 --- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 00:20:16 EDT --- rubygem-xmlparser-0.7.2.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816264] Review Request: fest-common - Fixtures for Easy Software Testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816264 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||fest-common-1.0.11-4.fc17 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-05-08 00:20:46 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 00:20:46 EDT --- fest-common-1.0.11-4.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 807113] Review Request: zanata-util - Helper scripts for using Zanata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807113 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|zanata-util-0.2.3-1.fc17|zanata-util-0.2.7-1.fc17 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 00:15:39 EDT --- zanata-util-0.2.7-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800599] Review Request: cmyktool -
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800599 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||cmyktool-0.1.6-0.1.pre1.fc1 ||7 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-05-08 00:16:30 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 00:16:30 EDT --- cmyktool-0.1.6-0.1.pre1.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 787024] Review Request: m4rie - Linear Algebra over F_2^e
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787024 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||m4rie-20120415-2.fc17 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-05-08 00:13:46 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-08 00:13:46 EDT --- m4rie-20120415-2.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 817271] Review Request:openerp-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=817271 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Robin Lee 2012-05-08 00:04:50 EDT --- The URL of Source0 in 6.1 specfile seems 404. And if you change the name of the package, you should update the title of this report. And the summary is missed in the title. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817981] Review Request: ratpoints - Find rational points on hyperelliptic curves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817981 --- Comment #4 from pcpa 2012-05-07 23:39:25 EDT --- Many thanks for the review. I added verbatim your suggestions to correct the issues you pointed out in the Makefile. Also added gpl-2.0.txt to the main package. I agree about the point of multilib, besides I myself do not use it and always purge ix86 rpms :-) I think I would go with the -tools suggestion. But I am used to do it in Mandriva by creating a library package, in this case, it would be: ratpoints libratpoints0 libratpoints-devel but in Mandriva I had packaged all in one, because there is only one header, one small library and one small binary... I think better to keep things simple for now :-) As a lot of other things would break if pretending to install sagemath i686 and x86_64 in the same system. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint SRPMS/ratpoints-2.1.3-3.fc16.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/ratpoints-* ratpoints.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hyperelliptic -> hyper elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical ratpoints.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hyperelliptic -> hyper elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical ratpoints.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hyperelliptic -> hyper elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical ratpoints.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hyperelliptic -> hyper elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical ratpoints-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. and rpmlint on installed package: $ rpmlint ratpoints ratpoints-devel ratpoints.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hyperelliptic -> hyper elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical ratpoints.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hyperelliptic -> hyper elliptic, hyper-elliptic, hypercritical ratpoints.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libratpoints.so.0 linux-vdso.so.1 ratpoints-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. also tested a koji --scratch build and it finishes without errors. Updated spec and srpm at: Spec URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/ratpoints.spec SRPM URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/ratpoints-2.1.3-3.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 817268] Review Request: python-faces - Python project management tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817268 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|robinlee.s...@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 819687] Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Dabašinskas 2012-05-07 22:30:36 EDT --- koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4061822 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819687] Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 --- Comment #1 from Tomas Dabašinskas 2012-05-07 22:18:02 EDT --- [tdabasin@iddqd ~]$ cd /tmp [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec --2012-05-08 12:17:02-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:03-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, 205.251.203.68, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1232 (1.2K) [text/x-rpm-spec] Saving to: “python-rtkit.spec” 100%[=>] 1,232 --.-K/s in 0s 2012-05-08 12:17:05 (58.8 MB/s) - “python-rtkit.spec” saved [1232/1232] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm --2012-05-08 12:17:16-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:18-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.204, 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.204|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 15968 (16K) [application/x-rpm] Saving to: “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” 100%[=>] 15,968 81.8K/s in 0.2s 2012-05-08 12:17:19 (81.8 KB/s) - “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” saved [15968/15968] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ exit exit Script done, file is typescript [tdabasin@iddqd ~]$ cat typescript Script started on Tue 08 May 2012 12:16:45 PM EST [tdabasin@iddqd ~]$ cd /tmp [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec --2012-05-08 12:17:02-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:03-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, 205.251.203.68, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.20|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1232 (1.2K) [text/x-rpm-spec] Saving to: “python-rtkit.spec” 100%[=>] 1,232 --.-K/s in 0s 2012-05-08 12:17:05 (58.8 MB/s) - “python-rtkit.spec” saved [1232/1232] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ wget https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm --2012-05-08 12:17:16-- https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving github.com... 207.97.227.239 Connecting to github.com|207.97.227.239|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm [following] --2012-05-08 12:17:18-- http://cloud.github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Resolving cloud.github.com... 205.251.203.204, 205.251.203.20, 205.251.203.33, ... Connecting to cloud.github.com|205.251.203.204|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 15968 (16K) [application/x-rpm] Saving to: “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” 100%[=>] 15,968 81.8K/s in 0.2s 2012-05-08 12:17:19 (81.8 KB/s) - “python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm” saved [15968/15968] [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [tdabasin@iddqd tmp]$ rpmlint python-rtkit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warning
[Bug 817311] Review Request: miniupnpc - Library and tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817311 --- Comment #6 from pcpa 2012-05-07 22:09:18 EDT --- libircclient is now packaged, but still needs miniupnpc reviewed and built to enable packaging megaglest. I added an entry to the "miniupnpc Bugs" forum listing the patches and packaging problems as well as request for any comments on how it packaged, and a back link to the review request. See http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1140 rpmlint output: $ ls SRPMS/miniupnpc-1.6-3.fc16.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/miniupnpc-*.rpm RPMS/x86_64/miniupnpc-1.6-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm RPMS/x86_64/miniupnpc-debuginfo-1.6-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm RPMS/x86_64/miniupnpc-devel-1.6-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm SRPMS/miniupnpc-1.6-3.fc16.src.rpm $ rpmlint SRPMS/miniupnpc-1.6-3.fc16.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/miniupnpc-*.rpm miniupnpc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libminiupnpc -> condominium 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The package was also verified in a mock --scratch build. Actually, there was a bug corrected in the new spec and srpm, caused by enabling the build to compile some test programs, but that was being done before actually generating the library, so now it does not run "make -j" but runs as "make upnpc-shared all" to build the library first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769794] Review Request: rpm2targz - Convert a .rpm file to a .tar.gz archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769794 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen 2012-05-07 22:08:00 EDT --- Perhaps it might be better to start from this package for opensuse which adds some manpages, etc. https://build.opensuse.org/package/binary?arch=x86_64&filename=rpm2targz-9.0.0.4g-4.36.lk.src.rpm&package=rpm2targz&project=home%3ALazy_Kent&repository=openSUSE_Factory Anyway as Martin says first the license issues need to be clarified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817311] Review Request: miniupnpc - Library and tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817311 --- Comment #7 from pcpa 2012-05-07 22:10:05 EDT --- Update for spec and srpm locations: Spec URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/miniupnpc.spec SRPM URL: http://kenobi.mandriva.com/~pcpa/miniupnpc-1.6-3.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 813594] Review Request: pwauth - External plugin for mod_authnz_external authenticator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813594 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 21:30:16 EDT --- pwauth-2.3.10-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pwauth-2.3.10-1.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 819687] New: Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
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-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 Summary: Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tdaba...@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: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Request Tracker REST Interface Best Practical RT (Request Tracker) data access python module for REST interface. https://github.com/z4r/python-rtkit#readme -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819678] Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819678 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Underwood 2012-05-07 20:30:02 EDT --- For reference, this bug asks the RHEL6 maintainer to update to CMake 2.8, and has no response: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606892 This was my motivation for developing the cmake28 package. If RHEL ships a more up to date package, we can simply retire the cmake28 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 819678] New: Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819678 Summary: Review Request: cmake28 - A package of CMake 2.8.x for EL6 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jonathan.underw...@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://jgu.fedorapeople.org/cmake28.spec SRPM URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/cmake28-2.8.8-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Currently RHEL6 ships with CMake 2.6.x which is very old. This is a parallel installable package of the 2.8.x release of CMake - executable etc have been renamed. The idea is that this exists in EL6 until RHEL6 gets an update. If ever. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 672205] Review Request: pynag - Python Nagios plugin and configuration 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=672205 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-05-07 19:28:36 EDT --- I am very sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but here's a review. Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. Unfortunately there are a few problems: Your package is noarch; there is no reason to define python_sitearch since you won't ever reference that macro. The code is not GPLv2. For example, Model/EventHandlers/__init__.py and Model/macros.py are GPLv3+. The other code doesn't appear to even have any license statements; setup.py just says "GPL" and the LICENSE file explicitly says that if the code doesn't state a version, you can use any version you like. So upstream (which I guess means you) really needs to clarify that. It would be best to follow the GPL itself for that, since it tells you what to include in your source files, but at minimum you need to state somewhere what version of the GPL is in use. When we see differing licenses on code we always wonder if the code comes from another project altogether, which would run afoul of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. I'm not sure if that's the case since the copyright holder seems to be a committer on the project. But if that's the case then the project seems to be a bit confused as to which license is supposed to be on its code, which raises other questions. You should not in general have Requires: python; rpm should figure that out for itself. You don't usually want to add compressed manpages; rpm will compress them properly using whatever compression method happens to be preferred. I guess upstream provides them compressed for some odd reason so there's not much you can do unless you want to uncompress them in the spec, which seems kind of pointless. There is no need to duplicate all of the documentation in the -examples package. It has a dependency on the main package so all of that documentation is guaranteed to be available. The -examples package includes a README file which should be documentation. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 93d971e6f162d4bdaea6ab2735e9dbed1348d4bd64927e9bb1cb5fcca6dc2a54 pynag-0.4.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are OK. * dist tag is present. X license field does not appear to match the actual license. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. X final provides: pynag-0.4-4.fc18.noarch.rpm pynag = 0.4-4.fc18 = /usr/bin/python X python >= 2.3 python(abi) = 2.7 pynag-examples-0.4-4.fc18.noarch.rpm pynag-examples = 0.4-4.fc18 = /usr/bin/python pynag ? There might be bundled libraries. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. X documentation is duplicated between main and -examples packages. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the 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 818454] Review Request: rubygem-linecache19 - Read file with caching
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818454 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka 2012-05-07 19:01:20 EDT --- Bohuslav, would you write what is "really" blocker now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819670] Review Request: mingw-llvm - MinGW LLVM 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=819670 Eric Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org Alias||mingw-llvm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819670] New: Review Request: mingw-llvm - MinGW LLVM libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mingw-llvm - MinGW LLVM libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819670 Summary: Review Request: mingw-llvm - MinGW LLVM libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: e...@brouhaha.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/mingw-llvm/mingw-llvm.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/mingw-llvm/mingw-llvm-3.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build for f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4061434 Description: MinGW LLVM libraries for cross-development use. rpmlint output: mingw-llvm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment mingw32-llvm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i686-w64-mingw32-llvm-config mingw32-llvm-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-llvm-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 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 819461] Review request: jboss-jaxb-intros - JBoss JAXB Introductions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819461 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:26:46 EDT --- jboss-jaxb-intros-1.0.2-1.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 809114] Review Request: novacom-server - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809114 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:25:38 EDT --- novacom-server-1.1.0-0.6.rc1.fc17, novacom-client-1.1.0-0.4.rc1.git.ff7641193a.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 819464] Review request: jboss-jaxws-2.2-api - Java API for XML-Based Web Services 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819464 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:25:18 EDT --- jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2-0.1.20120507gitd6937f.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 812384] Review Request: ghc-sendfile - Portable sendfile 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=812384 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:25:24 EDT --- ghc-sendfile-0.7.6-1.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 809116] Review Request: novacom-client - Utility to connect to WebOS devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809116 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:25:44 EDT --- novacom-server-1.1.0-0.6.rc1.fc17, novacom-client-1.1.0-0.4.rc1.git.ff7641193a.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 819459] Review request: jbossws-spi - JBossWS SPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819459 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:27:00 EDT --- jbossws-spi-2.0.3-1.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 819396] Review Request: python-restsh - A client for test and access to REST 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=819396 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:26:51 EDT --- python-restsh-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 813594] Review Request: pwauth - External plugin for mod_authnz_external authenticator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813594 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:25:31 EDT --- pwauth-2.3.10-1.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 818769] Review Request: mingw-orc - Cross compiled Oil Run-time Compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818769 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:26:03 EDT --- mingw-orc-0.4.16-1.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 819480] Review Request: limesurvey - a web-based survey 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=819480 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Summary|Review Request: limesurvey |Review Request: limesurvey |rpm packaging |- a web-based survey ||application Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2012-05-07 18:08:09 EDT --- Adding needsponsor and cleaning things up a bit. I'm going to work with srineth on this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813564] Review Request: mod_authnz_external - use external means for httpd basic authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813564 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:10:34 EDT --- mod_authnz_external-3.2.6-1.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 811739] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:08:56 EDT --- python-tw2-jqplugins-ui-2.0.1-3.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 799597] Review Request: php-pecl-xhprof - A Hierarchical Profiler for PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799597 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 18:09:19 EDT --- php-pecl-xhprof-0.9.2-5.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 819020] Review Request: jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api - Java EE Management 1.1 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=819020
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann 2012-05-07 17:37:15
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.spec
SPECS/jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api-1.0.1.Final.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api-1.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api-1.0.1.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api-1.0.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-j2eemgmt-1.1-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] 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].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2+
[-] 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] 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.
MD5SUM this package: a3a4908c5db7dc222555b1cf79d563d8
MD5SUM upstream package: a3a4908c5db7dc222555b1cf79d563d8
[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)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] 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
[-] 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 in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4061316
=== Issues ===
1. Package doesn't build, please add maven and mav
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt 2012-05-07 17:21:22 EDT --- > I recall a discussion on devel The result of it is covered by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros The full background about the small benefit of path macros in some cases is a bit longer than what can be found on that page. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819274] Review Request: radeonhd-power - power settings for radeon cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819274 --- Comment #3 from Victor Costan 2012-05-07 17:16:13 EDT --- Thank you for the very quick turnaround! I wasn't trying to obfuscate anything, I'm sorry this is how it seems. I'm using github to host my code, and I tagged version 1.0 using the v1.0 tag. When I wget the file from the URL in Source0, it comes out as "v1.0", with no extension. Then, to make things worse, github adds the short commit hash to the directory name, even though I used a named tag to get the tarball. That's why I thought I couldn't use setup, and I have that mess in the RPM file. I'll re-read the guidelines and try to come back with a better solution soon. Once again, thank you for taking a look at my spec so quickly! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #35 from Mattia Meneguzzo 2012-05-07 17:16:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #34) > Hey Mattia, I could change your login email address in bugzilla to the email > address you have listed in the Fedora Account System (since odysseus@fp.o just > forwards there). Would that work for you? If the reason for me not being able to set the "fedora-cvs" flag is my current login email address, please proceed. Thanks in advance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816124] Review Request: libdb4 - Oracle (Berkeley) DB package 4.x.x series
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816124 --- Comment #34 from Michael Schwendt 2012-05-07 16:56:03 EDT --- The questionable -devel-doc subpackage and its superfluous dependencies ought to be fixed, too. The package includes much more than just C API docs. It's low-hanging fruit to rename it to just -doc especially when Obsoletes are introduced anyway. I've summed up some breakage that has piled up in the libdb package: bug 819079 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819237] Review Request: vdr-screenshot - Extended screenshot plugin for VDR
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819237 --- Comment #3 from Ville Skyttä 2012-05-07 16:52:55 EDT --- Martin, do you need a sponsor? If yes, be sure to mention it and set the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker, see docs at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Create_Your_Review_Request https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Be also sure to run rpmlint on source rpm too and fix applicable issues, it reveals e.g.: vdr-screenshot.src:6: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 6) The unstripped-binary-or-object warning needs to be fixed. Haven't looked into it yet, but an usual reason is missing executable permissions on the *.so. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll look into reviewing this later (no sooner than next weekend, though). In the meantime, I also suggest looking into other vdr-* plugin packages in Fedora 17+ and "modernizing" your package like they're done - e.g. no need for so many %globals because that stuff is already defined in vdr-devel's macros (%vdr_*) etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985 --- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-05-07 16:55:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > In order to get sponsored into the packager group, please follow > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you > > You should do some informal reviews (and note the bug numbers e.g. here, as a > reference for a potential sponsor). Sorry, missed the bugmail with this. Here are some I've done in the past: 753577 815018 768894 755890 756435 728837 769029 I'll try and do some more this week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132
--- Comment #11 from David Cantrell 2012-05-07 16:48:08
EDT ---
Clean build:
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.KoCoh7
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ cd /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf python-lvm-1.1.1
+ /usr/bin/tar -xf -
+ /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/SOURCES/python-lvm-1.1.1.tar.gz
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd python-lvm-1.1.1
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ exit 0
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.KWgWfo
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd python-lvm-1.1.1
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ /usr/bin/python setup.py build
running build
running build_ext
building 'lvm' extension
creating build
creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7
gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
-D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -DNDEBUG -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
-D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -fwrapv -fPIC -I/usr/include/python2.7 -c liblvm.c -o
build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/liblvm.o
creating build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7
gcc -pthread -shared -Wl,-z,relro build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/liblvm.o
-L/usr/lib64 -llvm2app -lpython2.7 -o build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7/lvm.so
+ exit 0
Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.yIzEzG
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ '[' /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64 '!=' /
']'
+ rm -rf /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
++ dirname /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
+ mkdir -p /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT
+ mkdir /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
+ cd python-lvm-1.1.1
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ /usr/bin/python setup.py install --skip-build --root
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
running install
running install_lib
creating /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr
creating
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/lib64
creating
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/lib64/python2.7
creating
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages
copying build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.7/lvm.so ->
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages
running install_egg_info
Writing
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/lvm-1.1.1-py2.7.egg-info
+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILD/python-lvm-1.1.1
extracting debug info from
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/lvm.so
57 blocks
+ '[' '%{buildarch}' = noarch ']'
+ QA_CHECK_RPATHS=1
+ case "${QA_CHECK_RPATHS:-}" in
+ /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths
+ /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-compress
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1
Bytecompiling .py files below
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/lib64/python2.7/
using /usr/bin/python2.7
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-python-hardlink
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars
Processing files: python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1QVaL3
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd python-lvm-1.1.1
+
DOCDIR=/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/share/doc/python-lvm-1.1.1
+ export DOCDIR
+ /usr/bin/mkdir -p
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/share/doc/python-lvm-1.1.1
+ cp -pr COPYING COPYING.LESSER README
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64/usr/share/doc/python-lvm-1.1.1
+ exit 0
Provides: lvm.so()(64bit) python-lvm = 1.1.1-1.fc18 python-lvm(x86-64) =
1.1.1-1.fc18
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <=
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
liblvm2app.so.2.2()(64bit) liblvm2app.so.2.2(Base)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.7
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Processing files: python-lvm-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64
Wrote: /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Wrote: /home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
Wrote:
/home/dcantrel/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985
--- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-05-07
16:51:59 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > %setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag}
> > tar -zxf %SOURCE1
>
> Hint: %setup can extract multiple tarballs, too:
>
> %setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag} -a1
Thanks for the tip.
>
> > %files
> > %{_libdir}/../lib/man2html
>
> Really unusual. Nothing forces you to use %_libdir, especially not if the
> value
> of this variable is not passed into the source code's build framework as an
> option. So, let's see:
>
> > %build
> > # not autoconf
> > ./configure -d +fhs
>
> $ grep libdir configure
> $
>
> That custom configure script understands several options, however, and
> defaults
> to -prefix=/usr and then derives other paths from that prefix. It hardcodes a
> confdir="${confprefix}/lib" path, for example, and the Debian sources hardcode
> /usr/lib, too. => Using %_libdir makes no sense.
I wasn't sure the proper way to express "/usr/lib" even on x86_64, so I looked
at how systemd did it (that was the first package that came to mind that also
needed it). Back at the time I wrote that spec file, it did it the same way:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=systemd.git;a=blob;f=systemd.spec;h=b5affa0d9b5294f591088f62de7c0f7fd28afe8d;hb=refs/heads/f15#l369
However, it's since switched to using %{_prefix}/lib and I recall a discussion
on devel that mentioned that that's the way to go too. I'll fix it.
> /usr/lib/man2html
>
> The spec file would also be more readable when making explicit that a
> directory
> is to be included and not a single file. A trailing slash does the trick:
>
> /usr/lib/man2html/
>
>
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
>
> At least the CGI executables are not built with %optflags yet.
I'll fix these two as well.
>
> *
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
>
> What's the status with regard to that?
Upstream is very dead; this is essentially the Debian fork of man2html. I have
a comment about what each patch does (most are bugfixes to manpage parsing) and
provided the patch number from Debian where relevant.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132 David Cantrell changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from David Cantrell 2012-05-07 16:49:17 EDT --- I approve, with the added comment that I personally don't feel it necessary to include the text of the GPL in a source release that's released under the LGPL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818264] Review Request: xlwt - Spreadsheet python 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=818264 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-07 16:50:34 EDT --- This is a total disaster. I requested the wrong name. Is it possible to kill the empty repo and process below? Still Another Package SCM Request == Package Name: python-xlwt <-- Short Description: Spreadsheet python library Owners: leamas Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132 --- Comment #10 from David Cantrell 2012-05-07 16:47:20 EDT --- Clean rpmlint: [dcantrel@rawhide ~]$ rpmlint python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132
--- Comment #9 from David Cantrell 2012-05-07 16:46:19
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > 2) Having the source archive be a gzipped tar file but named "v1.1" is bad
> > form. Please correct this. See
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for more information on
> > options here. github presents a challenge because there is not a good way
> > for
> > us to reference tar.gz downloads and it is up to the maintainer to create
> > those, though if you are also upstream I would recommend creating those.
>
> OK will do.
Much better now, thanks.
> > 3) The license in the spec file is correctly noted as LGPLv2+, but the
> > source
> > archive contains both a copy of the GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+. Reading the code, I
> > see no mention of GPL-only licensed code. It's all LGPL. I would recommend
> > removing the GPLv2+ COPYING file and just keeping the LGPLv2+ file. In
> > fact,
> > the FSF distributes that file as COPYING.LIB (see
> > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/Licenses/), which is the name I recommend you use
> > rather
> > than COPYING.LESSER
>
> I went by this:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
>
> which renames COPYING.LIB to COPYING.LESSER and recommends COPYING also
> included since COPYING.LESSER builds on COPYING.
>
> I have left it as-is for now, but am fine with either way.
Huh, well that page is new to me. I find the FSF's suggestions on how to cram
the GPL in to every piece of software is a little unnecessary. If the license
is LGPL, just include that text. But that's just me. I have no problems if
you want to keep it this way.
> > 4) The source archive unpacks to agrover-python-lvm-3363431, which is a
> > little
> > confusing. If you are generating this archive, please make it
> > %{name}-%{version}.
>
> Will do.
>
> Updated:
>
> Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/python-lvm.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/grover/target/fedora-17/SRPMS/python-lvm-1.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
Looks clean, will post updated rpmlint and build output.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819338] Review Request: linux-user-chroot - Helper program for calling chroot(2) as non-root
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819338 --- Comment #1 from Colin Walters 2012-05-07 16:39:02 EDT --- Some concerns were raised about adding a new setuid binary. Basically, my thoughts on this are: * Conceptually this program doesn't allow a user to purely gain priviliges; it's a trade of ability to execute other setuid binaries for the ability to call chroot() and make bind mounts. So it's not like e.g. NetworkManager where the user formerly couldn't control the network, now they can. By the nature of the tool, it's only designed to *limit* privileges for the child it runs. For example, it allows callers to have no networking stack. * I believe this binary is will not be a part of a privilege escalation chain that's not possible to reach with any other setuid binary installed by default (/bin/mount, /usr/sbin/seunshare) for example. * We *could* offer a configure option to use PolicyKit but it'd be really invasive...I'd do it if this was blocked getting into Fedora, but the precedents of seunshare and mount exist. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767985] Review Request: man2html - Convert man pages to HTML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767985
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt 2012-05-07 16:20:45
EDT ---
> %setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag}
> tar -zxf %SOURCE1
Hint: %setup can extract multiple tarballs, too:
%setup -q -n man-%{version}%{posttag} -a1
> %files
> %{_libdir}/../lib/man2html
Really unusual. Nothing forces you to use %_libdir, especially not if the value
of this variable is not passed into the source code's build framework as an
option. So, let's see:
> %build
> # not autoconf
> ./configure -d +fhs
$ grep libdir configure
$
That custom configure script understands several options, however, and defaults
to -prefix=/usr and then derives other paths from that prefix. It hardcodes a
confdir="${confprefix}/lib" path, for example, and the Debian sources hardcode
/usr/lib, too. => Using %_libdir makes no sense.
/usr/lib/man2html
The spec file would also be more readable when making explicit that a directory
is to be included and not a single file. A trailing slash does the trick:
/usr/lib/man2html/
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
At least the CGI executables are not built with %optflags yet.
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
What's the status with regard to that?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817270] Review Request: python-spiffgtkwidgets - Collection of useful Gtk widgets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817270 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-05-07 16:14:13 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-07 16:14:13 EDT --- Built OK on F16, f17 & rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 Bug 818805 depends on bug 817270, which changed state. Bug 817270 Summary: Review Request: python-spiffgtkwidgets - Collection of useful Gtk widgets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817270 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp-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=817271 Bug 817271 depends on bug 817270, which changed state. Bug 817270 Summary: Review Request: python-spiffgtkwidgets - Collection of useful Gtk widgets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817270 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815720] Review Request: jboss-jaxr-1.0-api - Java(TM) API for XML Registries 1.0 (JAXR)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815720
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann 2012-05-07 15:53:42
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.spec
SPECS/jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api-1.0.2.Final.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings
$ rpmlint SRPMS/jboss-jaxr-1.0-api-1.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api-1.0.2.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/jboss-jaxr-1.0-api-1.0.2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-jaxr-1.0-api.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jboss-jaxr-1.0-api-1.0.2/LICENSE
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
FSF address mentioned upstream.
[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.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] 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].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions
[x] 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] 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.
MD5SUM this package: 96e36c9594886a1aec34e0da5302cad3
MD5SUM upstream package: 96e36c9594886a1aec34e0da5302cad3
[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)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] 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
[-] 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 in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necess
[Bug 819274] Review Request: radeonhd-power - power settings for radeon cards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819274
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt 2012-05-07 15:32:37
EDT ---
Here's just some feedback as I've run into this review request and found
something surprising:
> %prep
> tar -xzf %{_sourcedir}/v%{version}
> mv pwnall-radeonhd-power-* %{name}-%{version}
> %setup -q -T -D -n %{name}-%{version}
Is this an obfuscation contest? ;) This made me curious. First of all, one
would use the %setup command for extracting ordinary source tarballs. It can
extract tar.gz archives just fine. And the '*' wildcard in your "mv" command is
fragile. Consider which directory you've entered when you run "tar -xzf …". So,
a closer look:
> Source0: https://github.com/pwnall/radeonhd-power/tarball/v%{version}
$ rpmls -p radeonhd-power-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
-rw-rw-r-- radeonhd-power.spec
-rw-rw-r-- v1.0
Uh? A file "v1.0" indeed? Why would you not give it a slightly more meaningful
file name, at least?
$ file v1.0
v1.0: gzip compressed data, from Unix
$ tar ftz v1.0
pwnall-radeonhd-power-ee4f3db/
pwnall-radeonhd-power-ee4f3db/LICENSE
pwnall-radeonhd-power-ee4f3db/Makefile
pwnall-radeonhd-power-ee4f3db/src/
pwnall-radeonhd-power-ee4f3db/src/radeonhd-power
pwnall-radeonhd-power-ee4f3db/src/radeonhd-power.service
The following %setup invocation would be much more clear:
%setup -q -n pwnall-radeonhd-power-ee4f3db
Of course, parts of it can be moved into RPM macros to be defined at the top of
the spec file (especially if they change often). Instead, you try to hide the
truncated git hash of an unnamed snapshot whose archive contents don't refer to
"1.0" anywhere either. That's questionable. The Packaging Guidelines refer to
snapshots:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_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 819180] Review Request: kdesrc-build - A tool to allow you to easily build KDE from its source repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819180 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler 2012-05-07 15:10:11 EDT --- With our system Qt, it needs to use qmake-qt4, not just qmake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819480] Review Request: limesurvey rpm packaging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich 2012-05-07 14:54:45 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers Have you already read the above? Please create a review ticket as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request and don't forget FE-NEEDSPONSOR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811739] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 14:43:43 EDT --- python-tw2-jqplugins-ui-2.0.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tw2-jqplugins-ui-2.0.1-3.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 811739] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 14:23:33 EDT --- python-tw2-jqplugins-ui-2.0.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tw2-jqplugins-ui-2.0.1-2.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811739] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819008] Review Request: waterbearlang-waterbear - Waterbear is a toolkit for making programming more accessible and fun.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819008 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Greene 2012-05-07 14:12:43 EDT --- ***I have moved the updated files to this directory Spec URL: http://scotland/~agreene/waterbearlang-waterbear.spec SRPM URL: http://scotland/~agreene/waterbearlang-waterbear-1.0-5.fc16.src.rpm RPM URL: http://scotland/~agreene/waterbearlang-waterbear-1.0-5.fc16.noarch.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 819180] Review Request: kdesrc-build - A tool to allow you to easily build KDE from its source repositories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819180 --- Comment #4 from Gregor Tätzner 2012-05-07 14:01:09 EDT --- Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/kdesrc-build.spec SRPM URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/kdesrc-build-1.14.1-2.fc16.src.rpm That was quick, thank you Jaroslav! You have earned a review coupon :) 2 Days ago upstream released a new version. But I can't update my package for the moment because a) not all tests are succeeding b) the tool doesn't work on fedora, at least for me (complaining about missing qmake?!) just for information. I'm going to fill some bug reports. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816012
--- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-07 13:42:47 EDT
---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Licenses found: "UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see
file: /home/mk/src/FedoraReview/src/816012/licensecheck.txt
LICENSE is AGPL
[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 is run on all rpms the build produces
There are rpmlint messages (see attachment)
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Upstream MD5sum matches source
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues
--
[!] The LICENSE file is still AGPL, I presume you intended this to
be the GPL 2.0 COPYING?
[!] Since PKG-INFO is the only file with an overall license claim
(there's nothing in README.rst) include it in %doc
[!] The Summary: You might consider avoid the term virtualenv in the
summary, it's already in the name; using the name in the summary
is somewhat frowned upon. "Isolated python environments wrapper"?
[!] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-virtualenv/ states
the license as "MIT-style perm
[Bug 812059] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-flot - jQuery flot (plotting) for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812059 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-07 13:32:52 EDT --- Fixes to directory ownership. Thanks! Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jqplugins-flot.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jqplugins-flot-2.0.1-3.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 817981] Review Request: ratpoints - Find rational points on hyperelliptic curves
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817981
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James 2012-05-07 13:25:34 EDT
---
Just a few more issues, I think. The build system is adding
-fomit-frame-pointer to the compiler flags, which should not be done:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags.
Also, the shared library has a number of undefined non-weak symbols which would
be satisfied by linking with libgmp, as well as two symbols (ceil and floor)
that would be satisfied by linking with libm. To see this, install ratpoints,
then run "rpmlint ratpoints". In addition, the shared library is not linked
with RPM_LD_FLAGS, which enables partial relro.
To fix all of the above, add this to %prep and drop CCFLAGS="..." from the make
invocation in %build:
sed -e "s/-Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer/%{optflags} %{use_sse}/" \
-e "s/-shared/& $RPM_LD_FLAGS -lgmp -lm/" \
-i Makefile
Also, gpl-2.0.txt should be in %doc:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text.
Finally, is there any reason that multi-lib would be helpful? That's when, on
x86_64 for example, you can install both i686 and x86_64 versions of the
library. (You only get the x86_64 version of the binary, though.) If that
would be useful, then you should put the binary and the library into separate
packages. This can be done either way: the main package contains the library
and a subpackage (say, -tools) contains the binary, or the main package
contains the binary and a subpackage (say, -libs) contains the library. In
either case, make sure the binary subpackage requires the library subpackage.
Catering to multi-lib is not required. I'm just bringing it up in case you
consider it a good thing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811750] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-gritter - jQuery gritter (growl-like popups) for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811750 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-07 13:26:47 EDT --- Here's a new release that (hopefully) fixes the directory ownership issue you pointed out. I left the rhel macro as-is to maintain consistency across the python-tw2-* packages. Thanks for the tip, though! :) Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jqplugins-gritter.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-tw2-jqplugins-gritter-2.0.1-2.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 815814] Review Request: rubygem-paranoia - Cleaner re-implementation of acts_as_paranoid (ActiveRecord soft-delete 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=815814 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 13:09:22 EDT --- rubygem-paranoia-1.1.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-paranoia-1.1.0-3.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 815814] Review Request: rubygem-paranoia - Cleaner re-implementation of acts_as_paranoid (ActiveRecord soft-delete 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=815814 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 13:06:26 EDT --- rubygem-paranoia-1.1.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-paranoia-1.1.0-1.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 811739] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-07 12:55:39 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 811739] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui - jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811739 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-07 12:51:25 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-tw2-jqplugins-ui Short Description: jQuery UI for ToscaWidgets2 Owners: ralph Branches: f17 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 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816012 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-07 12:49:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Provisional review: open issues are the license. Formally, I should ask you to > inform upstream about the missing license file. However, since you actually > are > the upstream(?) I suggest that you fix it once and for all: > - Add a header with copyright and license info to all source files. > - Add the AGPL license file to the package, and include it in %doc > - Either include an overall copyright and license statement in README.rst, or > just include PKG-INFO in %doc which already has this. > > None of these are blockers. I will do a complete review as soon as you reply > to > this. I am in fact the upstream. :) (I should have mentioned that!) I put out a new version which resolves all the license ambiguity (Should be GPLv2+). I also updated the spec to be a little more specific when declaring directory ownership. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-virtualenvcontext.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-virtualenvcontext-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816012] Review Request: python-virtualenvcontext - Switch virtualenvs with a python context manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816012 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean 2012-05-07 12:47:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > BTW: I'm no native speaker,so... but I have a vague feeling that the > 'virtualenv' in the summary might not be the best English. However, I'm not > the person to judge this, definitely not, so as long as you are comfortable > with this it's fine w me as well. > > That is not to say I trust rpmlint's spellcheck ;) 'virtualenv' is definitely invalid english, but it is a technical term referring to the python virtualenv module and the environments it creates. https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-virtualenv -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819464] Review request: jboss-jaxws-2.2-api - Java API for XML-Based Web Services 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819464 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 12:34:36 EDT --- jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2-0.1.20120507gitd6937f.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2-0.1.20120507gitd6937f.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 819464] Review request: jboss-jaxws-2.2-api - Java API for XML-Based Web Services 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819464 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-07 12:28:28 EDT --- NO, don't do that. The reviewer sets the flag. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810033] Review Request: python-virtualenvwrapper - Enhancements to virtualenv
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810033 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 12:28:04 EDT --- python-virtualenvwrapper-3.2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-virtualenvwrapper-3.2-3.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 819591] Package Review: cvsps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819591 Michal Luscon changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Merge Review: cvsps |Package Review: cvsps -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819591] Package Review: cvsps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819591 Michal Luscon 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 816907] Review Request: powermock - Powerful mocking 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=816907 --- Comment #6 from Roman Kennke 2012-05-07 12:17:25 EDT --- Fixed all the above: SPEC: http://rkennke.fedorapeople.org/powermock/3/powermock.spec SRPM: http://rkennke.fedorapeople.org/powermock/3/powermock-1.4.12-3.fc16.src.rpm In addition to that, I also removed .svn dirs from the created source package (and adjusted the script accordingly). Ok to go in now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810033] Review Request: python-virtualenvwrapper - Enhancements to virtualenv
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810033 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 12:18:32 EDT --- python-virtualenvwrapper-3.2-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-virtualenvwrapper-3.2-3.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 819591] New: Merge Review: cvsps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Merge Review: cvsps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819591 Summary: Merge Review: cvsps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mlus...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, hho...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: Bug Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Checked git commit: 048e66bf82d60a701cc2b622f4721779c3372cfb YES source files match upstream - cvsps-2.2b1.tar.gz YES package meets naming NO package meets versioning guidelines. Pre-version should be marked as b.1 instead of b1. YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. YES dist tag is present. YES clean section and buildroot are present YES license field matches the actual license YES license is open source-compatible YES license text included in package YES latest version is being packaged YES BuildRequires are proper. YES compiler flags are appropriate. YES package builds in mock YES debuginfo package looks complete. NO rpmlint is silent - incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/cvsps-2.2/COPYING YES final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. YES no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. YES owns the directories it creates. YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. YES no duplicates in %files. YES scriptlets must be sane. YES code, not content. N/A large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. YES no headers. YES no pkgconfig files. YES no libtool .la droppings. YES not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on 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 --- Comment #34 from Toshio Kuratomi 2012-05-07 12:05:44 EDT --- Hey Mattia, I could change your login email address in bugzilla to the email address you have listed in the Fedora Account System (since odysseus@fp.o just forwards there). Would that work 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 819461] Review request: jboss-jaxb-intros - JBoss JAXB Introductions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819461 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819461] Review request: jboss-jaxb-intros - JBoss JAXB Introductions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819461 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 12:03:49 EDT --- jboss-jaxb-intros-1.0.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-jaxb-intros-1.0.2-1.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 819464] Review request: jboss-jaxws-2.2-api - Java API for XML-Based Web Services 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819464 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-07 11:56:25 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 819464] Review request: jboss-jaxws-2.2-api - Java API for XML-Based Web Services 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819464 Patryk Obara changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Patryk Obara 2012-05-07 11:51:48 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-jaxws-2.2-api Short Description: Java API for XML-Based Web Services 2.2 Owners: dreamertan Branches: f17 InitialCC: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819459] Review request: jbossws-spi - JBossWS SPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819459 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816124] Review Request: libdb4 - Oracle (Berkeley) DB package 4.x.x series
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816124
--- Comment #33 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-07 11:43:42 EDT
---
Now we have:
libdb4.src:274: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
libdb4.src:274: W: macro-in-comment %{__soversion_major}
libdb4.src:274: W: macro-in-comment %{__soversion_major}
libdb4.src:274: W: macro-in-comment %{__soversion_major}
libdb4.src:274: W: macro-in-comment %{__soversion_major}
libdb4.src:392: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
libdb4.src:392: W: macro-in-comment %{__soversion}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
libdb4.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4
libdb4-cxx.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4-cxx
libdb4-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4-cxx-devel
libdb4-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4-devel
libdb4-devel-static.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4-devel-static
libdb4-java.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4-java
libdb4-tcl.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4-tcl
libdb4-utils.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided db4-utils
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.
libdb4-tcl-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on
libdb4-tcl/libdb4-tcl-libs/liblibdb4-tcl
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819459] Review request: jbossws-spi - JBossWS SPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819459 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-07 11:47:29 EDT --- jbossws-spi-2.0.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbossws-spi-2.0.3-1.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 819464] Review request: jboss-jaxws-2.2-api - Java API for XML-Based Web Services 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819464
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann 2012-05-07 11:47:06
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.spec
SPECS/jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2.20120507gitd6937f.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2-0.1.20120507gitd6937f.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2.20120507gitd6937f.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2-0.1.20120507gitd6937f.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-jaxws-2.2-api.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/jboss-jaxws-2.2-api-2.0.2/LICENSE.txt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] 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].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions
[x] 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] 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.
MD5SUM this package: a9a64c50e8a7651a0be92446dc15e902
MD5SUM upstream package: a9a64c50e8a7651a0be92446dc15e902
[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)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] 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
[-] 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 in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[Bug 800731] Review Request: fcitx-table-extra - Extra tables for Fcitx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800731 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2012-05-07 11:36:46 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 800731] Review Request: fcitx-table-extra - Extra tables for Fcitx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800731 Liang Suilong changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728242] Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728242 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-05-07 11:17:13 Bug 728242 depends on bug 728248, which changed state. Bug 728248 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728248 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED --- Comment #4 from Emanuel Rietveld 2012-05-07 11:17:13 EDT --- With the move to ruby 1.9, making rails 2.3 compatible has become much more difficult in recent Fedora releases. Additionally, several projects requiring rails 2.3 previously now support rails 3, including redmine. I am abandoning this effort. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726690] Review Request: rubygem-rails2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726690 Bug 726690 depends on bug 728242, which changed state. Bug 728242 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728242 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED Bug 726690 depends on bug 728248, which changed state. Bug 728248 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728248 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726690] Review Request: rubygem-rails2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726690 Bug 726690 depends on bug 728242, which changed state. Bug 728242 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionmailer2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728242 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED Bug 726690 depends on bug 728248, which changed state. Bug 728248 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728248 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728249] Review Request: rubygem-activerecord2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728249 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-05-07 11:17:43 --- Comment #3 from Emanuel Rietveld 2012-05-07 11:17:43 EDT --- With the move to ruby 1.9, making rails 2.3 compatible has become much more difficult in recent Fedora releases. Additionally, several projects requiring rails 2.3 previously now support rails 3, including redmine. I am abandoning this effort. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728248] Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728248 Emanuel Rietveld changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-05-07 11:17:24 --- Comment #2 from Emanuel Rietveld 2012-05-07 11:17:24 EDT --- With the move to ruby 1.9, making rails 2.3 compatible has become much more difficult in recent Fedora releases. Additionally, several projects requiring rails 2.3 previously now support rails 3, including redmine. I am abandoning this effort. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728248] Review Request: rubygem-actionpack2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728248 Bug 728248 depends on bug 728249, which changed state. Bug 728249 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activerecord2.3 - rails 2 alongside rails 3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728249 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
