[Bug 829745] Review Request: shrinkwrap-resolver - ShrinkWrap Resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829745 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: shrinkwrap-resolver Short Description: ShrinkWrap Resolver Owners: goldmann Branches: f17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831491] New: Review Request: php-zmq - PHP 0MQ/zmq/zeromq extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831491 Bug ID: 831491 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: php-zmq - PHP 0MQ/zmq/zeromq extension Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rb...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/php-zmq.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/php-zmq-0.6.0-2.20120613git516bd6f.fc17.src.rpm Description: PHP extension for the 0MQ/zmq/zeromq messaging system Fedora Account System Username: ralph rpmlint output: --- devel/php-zmq ‹master* ⁇› » rpmlint php-zmq.spec ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-zmq-0.6.0-2.20120613git516bd6f.fc17.src.rpm php-zmq.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: php-zmq-0.6.0-2.20120613git516bd6f.tar.gz php-zmq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zeromq -> zero php-zmq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zeromq -> zero php-zmq.src: W: invalid-url Source0: php-zmq-0.6.0-2.20120613git516bd6f.tar.gz 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. --- devel/php-zmq ‹master* ⁇› » rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/*.rpm php-zmq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zeromq -> zero php-zmq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zeromq -> zero php-zmq.src: W: invalid-url Source0: php-zmq-0.6.0-2.20120613git516bd6f.tar.gz php-zmq.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/php/modules/zmq.so zmq.so()(64bit) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. koji f17 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4157397 koji el6 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4157400 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823075] Review Request: php-symfony2-Security - Symfony2 Security Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823075
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Added optional requires
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/ClassLoader) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Finder) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Form) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Routing) require
SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-symfony2-Security.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-symfony2-Security-2.0.15-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823071] Review Request: php-symfony2-Form - Symfony2 Form Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823071
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #9 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Added optional require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/HttpFoundation) require
SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-symfony2-Form.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-symfony2-Form-2.0.15-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823073] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpKernel - Symfony2 HttpKernel Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823073
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Added optional requires
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/BrowserKit) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/ClassLoader) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Config) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Console) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/DependencyInjection) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Finder) require
SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-symfony2-HttpKernel.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-symfony2-HttpKernel-2.0.15-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823066] Review Request: php-symfony2-Validator - Symfony2 Validator Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823066
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Added optional requires
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/HttpFoundation) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Yaml) require
- Removed ownership for directories already owned by required packages
Update per comment #5
- Fix package.xml for *.xsd file issue
SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-symfony2-Validator.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-symfony2-Validator-2.0.15-3.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823065] Review Request: php-symfony2-Translation - Symfony2 Translation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823065
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #5 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Added optional requires
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Config) require
- Removed ownership for directories already owned by required packages
Update per comment #4
- Fix package.xml for *.xsd files issue
SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-symfony2-Translation.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-symfony2-Translation-2.0.15-3.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823060] Review Request: php-symfony2-Routing - Symfony2 Routing Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823060
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Added optional requires
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Config) require
- Added php-pear(%{pear_channel}/Yaml) require
- Removed ownership for directories already owned by required packages
Update per comment #4
- Fix package.xml for *.xsd file issue
SPEC URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-symfony2-Routing.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~siwinski/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-symfony2-Routing-2.0.15-3.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830743] Review Request: lohit-tamil-classical-fonts - Free Tamil classical sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830743 --- Comment #3 from Pravin Satpute --- aha, thank you Jason i was not aware of this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830221] Review Request: perl-Library-CallNumber-LC - Normalizes Library of Congress call numbers for sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830221 --- Comment #7 from Dan Scott --- Hmm. Actually, I think it should be BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build), not ExtUtils::MakeMaker for this one. One further problem - with the license as "GPL+ or Artistic or BSD", rpmlint complains with: perl-Library-CallNumber-LC.src: W: invalid-license Artistic It seems that, unfortunately, rpmlint doesn't recognize "GPL+ or Artistic" as a single name once "or BSD" is tacked on; it looks like each phrase separated by "or" is parsed as a separate license. And unfortunately, there is no "Artistic" license listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing - of the closest matches by name, "Artistic clarified" and "Artistic 2.0", their actual text doesn't match the text of the Artistic license as linked from http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ for the Perl "GPL+ or Artistic" entry in the licensing wiki. Time to call in Fedora Legal? Or time to teach rpmlint to try harder to match "GPL+ or Artistic" (and its variants) for the corner cases of tri-licensed software? In any case, I've updated http://bzr.coffeecode.net/scratch/perl-Library-CallNumber-LC/ with the new spec & srpm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.15-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.15-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.15-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.15-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.15-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.15-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823046] Review Request: php-symfony2-DependencyInjection - Symfony2 DependencyInjection Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823046 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-DependencyInjection-2.0.15-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony2-DependencyInjection-2.0.15-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823046] Review Request: php-symfony2-DependencyInjection - Symfony2 DependencyInjection Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823046 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-DependencyInjection-2.0.15-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony2-DependencyInjection-2.0.15-3.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823046] Review Request: php-symfony2-DependencyInjection - Symfony2 DependencyInjection Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823046 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-DependencyInjection-2.0.15-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony2-DependencyInjection-2.0.15-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823046] Review Request: php-symfony2-DependencyInjection - Symfony2 DependencyInjection Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823046 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823046] Review Request: php-symfony2-DependencyInjection - Symfony2 DependencyInjection Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823046 --- Comment #11 from Shawn Iwinski --- Fixed issue from comment #8 and commited -- http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=php-symfony2-DependencyInjection.git;a=commitdiff;h=0f9a2d6cd3705961302de1617e238e585fc04516 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829865] Review Request: perl-MARC-XML - Read and write XML serialization of MARC data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829865
--- Comment #4 from Dan Scott ---
Thanks, BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) added.
The permissions problem is indeed weird, and actually matches what's happening
in perl-MARC-Record. If you remove the %attr specification for %{_bindir} here,
you get:
perl-MARC-XML.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/xml2marc 0555L
(This is weird because ExtUtil::MakeMaker says that the default permission for
EXE_FILES is supposed to be 755, and I don't see anything overriding that
default in Makefile.PL for this module).
Over in perl-MARC-Record, the solution I inherited had been to "chmod -R u+w
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*". That seemed a bit bunt, which is why I went with the %attr
approach to resolve the problem specifically with the contents of %{_bindir}.
That said, I agree that %attr{755,-,-} is much cleaner than a mix of commas and
spaces, and I've made that change.
Spec URL: http://bzr.coffeecode.net/scratch/perl-MARC-XML/perl-MARC-XML.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bzr.coffeecode.net/scratch/perl-MARC-XML/perl-MARC-XML-0.93-1.fc17.src.rpm
Also, good catch of bug 827801 - that's actually the bug that started my whole
crazy quest to get this set of modules packaged, as I initially simply wanted
to get perl-MARC-Record updated and thought I would help out by offering a spec
file :) I'll comment over there accordingly. Thanks again, Iain!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830743] Review Request: lohit-tamil-classical-fonts - Free Tamil classical sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830743 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820488] Review Request: mod_auth_xradius - Apache module that provides authentication against RADIUS Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820488 --- Comment #29 from Simone Caronni --- I will test it tomorrow, I'm currently on a business trip without datacenter access. Thanks, --Simone -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829116] Review Request: ninja-build - A small build system with a focus on speed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116 --- Comment #4 from Matthew Woehlke --- (MUST) rpmlint output is missing for latest packages. (In particular, the latest changelog entry is missing the git hash, which I assume is why rpmlint reports "incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.3.20120605git".) (MUST) python is not listed as a BuildRequires? (I would be willing to believe python is an exception, though unless I am blind, I don't see it in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2?) (MUST) /usr/share/zsh/site-functions/ is not owned by the package or any required packages (SHOULD) currently, no manpage is known to be available (upstream or otherwise) MUST items verified: - name is okay - .spec name is okay - package meets guidelines AFAICS (pity there is no bash-completion-filesystem) - code license is okay (ASL 2.0; did spot check of sources to verify) - .spec gives correct license - COPYING present in rpm - .spec is en_US and is legible - builds successfully on x86_64 - no locale-dependent data - no static or shared libraries (also covers -static, -devel) - does not bundle system libs - no files are listed more than once in %files - permissions look okay - macro use is consistent AFAICT - package content is permissible - doc is not large, and not required for execution - no .la's - not a GUI application - all file names are ASCII Was unable to verify source tarball checksum, probably due to how it was generated. Did clone upstream git repo and verified directory contents (diff -ru) are the same. (Curiously, the tarball I generated with 'git archive' is identical size, and 'tar tvf' listings are also identical. Also, consider giving either github URL or git archive command in .spec to make it easier for curious folk to regenerate the tarball.) I don't have ready access to verify if it FTB on any architectures, but have no reason to believe it wouldn't build. Ergo, no ExcludeArch expected. I am insufficiently familiar with relocatable packages; I don't believe it is or is intended to be? Owns /etc/bash_completion.d (along with at least a half dozen other packages). One could read this as a violation of a MUST, but as I understand the directory ownership issue in this case, it is okay. SHOULD items verified: - license comes from upstream - program appears to run correctly - bash completion works -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830221] Review Request: perl-Library-CallNumber-LC - Normalizes Library of Congress call numbers for sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830221 --- Comment #6 from Dan Scott --- Thanks Iain! On the BSD vs. GPL+ or Artistic licensing ambiguity, I had filed an issue with upstream at http://code.google.com/p/library-callnumber-lc/issues/detail?id=6 (which is where the README directs people to file issues) while creating the package. Note that the previous issue I filed 9#5) was that the code on CPAN doesn't match the code in the http://code.google.com/p/library-callnumber-lc repository -- which is why I didn't notice the added BSD option in the README. I'll work with upstream to resolve the licensing problem on all fronts, and also to help them sort out their repository syncing. I'll also add BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817984] Review Request: ghc-zlib-conduit - Conduits for (de)compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817984 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-wai-1.2.0.2-1.fc17,ghc-warp-1.2.1.1-1.fc17,ghc-wai-extra-1.2.0.4-1.fc17,ghc-snap-core-0.8.1-1.fc17,ghc-zlib-conduit-0.4.0.1-1.fc17,ghc-zlib-enum-0.2.2.1-1.fc17,ghc-simple-sendfile-0.2.3-1.fc17,ghc-zlib-bindings-0.1.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-wai-1.2.0.2-1.fc17,ghc-warp-1.2.1.1-1.fc17,ghc-wai-extra-1.2.0.4-1.fc17,ghc-snap-core-0.8.1-1.fc17,ghc-zlib-conduit-0.4.0.1-1.fc17,ghc-zlib-enum-0.2.2.1-1.fc17,ghc-simple-sendfile-0.2.3-1.fc17,ghc-zlib-bindings-0.1.0.1-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830743] Review Request: lohit-tamil-classical-fonts - Free Tamil classical sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830743 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts --- If you set the fedora-review flag yourself, your ticket won't show up in the master ticket list and nobody will ever see it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829865] Review Request: perl-MARC-XML - Read and write XML serialization of MARC data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829865
--- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell ---
I'm going to wait for MARC-Charset to hit rawhide before formally reviewing
this one.
In the meantime, though,
%attr(0755, - -) %{_bindir}/*
is bugging me - it works, but it's inconsistent - should be all commas, or all
spaces - I generally prefer commas. But more importantly, it shouldn't be
necessary to specify %attr at all in this case - just having %{_bindir}/* in
%files ought to be enough (I didn't check - but unless something weird's
happening, every other package I've touched automagically ends up with the
correct 0755 permissions under %_bindir).
And this package also needs to BuildRequire: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker).
I noticed bug 827801 - perl-MARC-Record is probably something that spot just
inherited at some point in the past. It might be an idea to add a comment in
the bug that you'd be willing to be co-maintainer and request permissions in
pkgdb.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825415] Review Request: opensmtpd - Free implementation of the server-side SMTP protocol as defined by RFC 5321
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825415 Adrian Alves changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(aal...@gmail.com) | --- Comment #15 from Adrian Alves --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > I need help on build a systemd deamon for this not clue how to make one yet > > I think this is the smallest problem right now. > > Change the spec file so rpmlint is as reduced as reasonable and look, that > it builds properly in mock. > For instance, it's unusual to call ./configure directly, use the macro for > that and many problems mentioned by Matthias will be gone my magic. > But I'm afraid to get it properly building you need to patch it a bit... > > After that, we can have a look at adding systemd snippeds... New release with all the fixes suggested by rpmlint, [adrian@fedora SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/opensmtpd-201205220027-4.fc16.src.rpm opensmtpd.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/opensmtpd.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/opensmtpd-201205220027-4.fc16.src.rpm Now I will need assistance with systemd startup script -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830221] Review Request: perl-Library-CallNumber-LC - Normalizes Library of Congress call numbers for sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830221
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Iain Arnell ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint perl-Library-CallNumber-LC-0.22-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint perl-Library-CallNumber-LC-0.22-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/iarnell/rpmbuild/perl-Library-CallNumber-LC/Library-CallNumber-LC-0.22.tar.gz
:
MD5SUM this package : b25acaa6354e38b7623e084a1f9ce40a
MD5SUM upstream package : b25acaa6354e38b7623e084a1f9ce40a
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
There's one MUST issue here.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file match
[Bug 829860] Review Request: perl-MARC-Charset - Converts MARC-8 encoded data to UTF8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829860 --- Comment #9 from Iain Arnell --- Doh! I missed something obvious. When you check this in, please add a BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker). At the minute, it's pulled in as a dependency of perl-Test-Simple via perl-devel - that may change in future as Test-Simple probably shouldn't require EU::MM. My bad, but no real problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815098] Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - maven-processor-plugin Maven Mojo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820995] Review Request: java-oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- java-oauth-20100601-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/java-oauth-20100601-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820995] Review Request: java-oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829860] Review Request: perl-MARC-Charset - Converts MARC-8 encoded data to UTF8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829860 Dan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Dan Scott --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-MARC-Charset Short Description: Converts data encoded in MARC-8 to Unicode (UTF-8) New Branches: f17 Owners: dscott InitialCC: iarnell perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807472] Review Request: libstoragemgmt - Library for storage array management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807472 --- Comment #13 from Tony Asleson --- > Tell me your Fedora Account Username and I will go sponsor you. Great, thank you! Fedora account username: tasleson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807472] Review Request: libstoragemgmt - Library for storage array management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807472 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- == Review == Good: - rpmlint checks return: libstoragemgmt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lsmcli -> clime libstoragemgmt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lsmd -> LSD libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/lsm libstoragemgmt libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/lsm libstoragemgmt libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/lsm/ipc libstoragemgmt libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/lsm/ipc libstoragemgmt libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smis_lsmplugin libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sim_lsmplugin libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smispy_lsmplugin libstoragemgmt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ontap_lsmplugin libstoragemgmt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. All safe to ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (a4c40334c5bc18872ccac2121a05baa610b5f5d989308f2cb2dae1bd177eccd5) - package compiles on Fedora 17 (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r APPROVED. Tell me your Fedora Account Username and I will go sponsor you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804666] Review Request: libpfm - Library to encode performance events for use by perf tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804666 William Cohen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-12 16:46:32 --- Comment #18 from William Cohen --- The libpfm package is now in fedora rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=324030 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807472] Review Request: libstoragemgmt - Library for storage array management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807472 --- Comment #11 from Tony Asleson --- (In reply to comment #10) > The SHA256 sums on the source file in your SRPM and the source file on the > sourceforge website do not match: > > 874f537102fbdb4171f4482704549b113ff5ccb6e80564e2791bc56f4ac6 > libstoragemgmt-0.0.8.tar.gz > 23721de69bebf0ef9202a165e50bc571b65c053fa06388e0b31dc7c28fc9cec7 > rpmbuild/SOURCES/libstoragemgmt-0.0.8.tar.gz > > Not sure how you managed that, but you need to fix it. Once that is > resolved, I think I can finish out this review. I have some simple scripts I use to automate the creation of binary rpms for the yum repo I have on sourceforge. For each supported os version and platform I was fetching as source and running through the entire build process (was good at testing all steps). Unfortunately, make dist/distcheck appears to not be a signature repeatable operation, thus the reason the tarballs have different signatures (but identical file content). I have created a new release 0.0.9 with some new scripts and have verified that all the tarballs match as I no longer generate the rpm binaries directly out of source control. Hopefully, this will allow you to finish out the review. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-1 - Text Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cwick...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819955] Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819955 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819955] Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819955 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lightdm-kde Short Description: LightDM KDE Greeter Owners: rdieter cwickert Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819955] Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819955
Gregor Tätzner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Gregor Tätzner ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/greg/projects/Review/819955/lightdm-kde-0.1.1.tar.bz2 :
MD5SUM this package : a075680719c9aff179c0c1b67dfc9f5a
MD5SUM upstream package : a075680719c9aff179c0c1b67dfc9f5a
[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.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Approved
Just remember to fix lightdm devel subpackages :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820488] Review Request: mod_auth_xradius - Apache module that provides authentication against RADIUS Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820488 --- Comment #28 from Stephen Gallagher --- Created attachment 591254 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=591254&action=edit Patch libxradius for mozilla-nss support The attached patch should handle the NSS support. As before, I haven't tested it beyond ensuring that it compiles, since I don't have available infrastructure. Please let me know if it fails in any way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819954 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-12 14:48:30 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter --- imported into rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819955] Review Request: lightdm-kde - LightDM KDE Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819955 Bug 819955 depends on bug 819953, which changed state. Bug 819953 Summary: Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819954 Bug 819954 depends on bug 819953, which changed state. Bug 819953 Summary: Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-12 14:48:11 --- Comment #16 from Rex Dieter --- imported -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819954 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827761] vdr-skinenigmang - A skin for VDR based on the Enigma text2skin add on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827761 --- Comment #1 from MartinKG --- SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-skinenigmang/vdr-skinenigmang-0.1.2-3.fc17.src.rpm?a=ImpwhNg4EIg Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-skinenigmang/vdr-skinenigmang.spec?a=8ctTJcw1-qo changelog: * Tue Jun 12 2012 Martin Gansser - 0.1.2-3 - added config patch - added flag and icons in file section - spec file cleanup -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819954 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lightdm-gtk Short Description: LightDM GTK+ Greeter Owners: rdieter cwickert Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819954 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter --- versioning the lightdm-greeter dep indeed makes good sense -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 --- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lightdm Short Description: Lightweight Display Manager Owners: rdieter cwickert Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819954] Review Request: lightdm-gtk - LightDM GTK+ Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819954
Gregor Tätzner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Gregor Tätzner ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/greg/projects/Review/819954/lightdm-gtk-greeter-1.1.6.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : f9487ece204533000fe01ce83cfdc8a8
MD5SUM upstream package : f9487ece204533000fe01ce83cfdc8a8
[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.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Approved
Note: Actually the provides lightdm-greeter is unversioned. Could that cause
issues in future? Can we tie a greeter to a specific lightdm base package?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #14 from Paul Moore --- Thanks for the example, I'll reconsider autotools for a future release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Although autotools sucks greatly, it's a known quantity amongst developers and for that reason generally better than hand-hacked Makefiles. Here is a minimal autotools setup you can take inspiration from: http://git.annexia.org/?p=virt-hostinfo.git;a=tree;h=858cd733f328e2ffc961a28bbd4c362061bd2e6f;hb=56a3b79fbdcb80ef68f0311ca1d6af8b0789bff1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Shawn Iwinski --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation Short Description: Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component Owners: siwinski Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Rex Dieter --- thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lightdm Short Description: Lightweight Display Manager Owners: rdieter Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830277] Review Request: wmcoincoin - Funny dock-app for browsing and interact to XML board sites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830277
--- Comment #6 from pierrejourda...@gmail.com ---
I have editing the spec file and I remove :
%define version 2.5.1f
%define release 1%{?dist}
and replace :
Version:%{version}
Release:%{release}
and replace by theses lines :
Name:wmcoincoin
Version:2.5.1
Release:f%{?dist}
I have also add theses lines :
%global postver f
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}%{postver}
to correct the problem with the subfolder /wmcoincoin2.5.1f at the time of the
build process
I also removed the correction of the fsf address and I am informed the original
developers of this software for correction of this problem .
The .spec file :
http://pierre80.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/wmcoincoin.spec
The srpm file :
http://pierre80.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/wmcoincoin-2.5.1-f.fc17.src.rpm
The debug symbols (if needed)
http://pierre80.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/i686/wmcoincoin-debuginfo-2.5.1-f.fc17.i686.rpm
And an I686 build :
http://pierre80.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/i686/wmcoincoin-2.5.1-f.fc17.i686.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830362] Review Request: kscd - CD Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830362 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||830360 (audiocd-kio), ||827008 (libkcddb), 829393 ||(libkcompactdisc) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830360] Review Request: audiocd-kio - Audiocd kio slave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830360 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||830362 (kscd) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827008] Review Request: libkcddb - A KDE CDDB retrieval library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827008 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||830362 (kscd) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829393] Review Request: libkcompactdisc - A KDE compact disc library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829393 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||830362 (kscd) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830273] Review Request: dragon - Media player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830273 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdemm/dragon.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdemm/dragon-4.8.90-2.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jun 12 2012 Rex Dieter 4.8.90-2 - License: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and GDFL - %%doc README ... COPYING ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830398] Review Request: lancet - A build tool like Ant or Rake
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830398
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Hi Kushal,
The spec looks fine; APPROVED with some notes - see below (wrap the %clean
section in %if 0%{?rhel}, and let's rename that vendor tag since fedora-review
thought it was a field declaration for something the guidelines forbade...
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
==> we'll be targeting EPEL, this is fine but perhaps
wrap this in %if 0%{?rhel} ... %endif
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Note: Found : Vendor: technomancy
Argh, looks like we should call this something else then.
This is really to filter out the Vendor: tag so it's a false positive.
Let's switch to call it 'upstream' instead?
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
Tested with Leiningen 1.7.1
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
But w
[Bug 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Remi Collet ---
$ diff php-symfony2-HttpFoundation.spec.1 php-symfony2-HttpFoundation.spec
7c7
< Release: 1%{?dist}
---
> Release: 2%{?dist}
23a24
> Requires: php-pdo
88a90,92
> * Mon Jun 11 2012 Shawn Iwinski 2.0.15-2
> - Added php-pdo require
Blocker fixed
== Approved ==
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Thanks for the reply. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #32 from Jason Tibbitts --- Removing NEEDSPONSOR as it appears that this user is already sponsored. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829809] Review Request: python-svg - Python wrapper for svg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829809 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Implemented #4. No word on licensing thusfar. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Clasen --- We are not replacing firstboot entirely here, at least not in F18, so an obsoletes is not appropriate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #12 from Paul Moore --- (In reply to comment #11) > Off-head, I don't know if it's formally mandated. However without it, it's > effectively impossible to review a package without major efforts, because > the logs don't tell whether a package receives all CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS etc. > correctly. As mentioned in comment 10, we'll work on a verbose build for a future upstream release but it would be very helpful to get this package added to Rawhide now (as long as it meets all of the established requirements) so that we can make progress in other areas which depend on this package simultaneously. > Are you upstream? I've contributed the bulk of the code and cut the initial release. > Openly said, I'd recommend upstream to switch to a more standardized > build/make framework (be it autotools, cmake or what ever), because > hand-written makefiles/makefile-fragments, like the ones being using by this > package tend to become non-understood and unmaintainable in longer terms. I understand the concern but I am not currently a fan of the build frameworks that I've seen thus far and I'm unlikely to convert to them in the near term unless their use is a requirement for acceptance into Fedora. Looking towards the future, I'll need to spend more time understanding the build frameworks before I can give a definite "yes" or "no" regarding their inclusion in libseccomp. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 Matthias Clasen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcla...@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |gnome-initial-setup - |gnome-initial-setup - |Upstream replacement for|configure your desktop |firstboot | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #7) > > > Building should be verbose: > > > > Is this a requirement for acceptance? Off-head, I don't know if it's formally mandated. However without it, it's effectively impossible to review a package without major efforts, because the logs don't tell whether a package receives all CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS etc. correctly. > > I ask because to make this change > > with the current release would either require changes upstream or a patch > > carried with the RPM. Are you upstream? Openly said, I'd recommend upstream to switch to a more standardized build/make framework (be it autotools, cmake or what ever), because hand-written makefiles/makefile-fragments, like the ones being using by this package tend to become non-understood and unmaintainable in longer terms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820995] Review Request: java-oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790805 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822187] Review Request: novnc - websockets based VNC client and simple server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822187 Pádraig Brady changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-06-12 11:00:27 --- Comment #15 from Pádraig Brady --- thanks guys! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790805 Adrien Devresse changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807472] Review Request: libstoragemgmt - Library for storage array management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807472 --- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- The SHA256 sums on the source file in your SRPM and the source file on the sourceforge website do not match: 874f537102fbdb4171f4482704549b113ff5ccb6e80564e2791bc56f4ac6 libstoragemgmt-0.0.8.tar.gz 23721de69bebf0ef9202a165e50bc571b65c053fa06388e0b31dc7c28fc9cec7 rpmbuild/SOURCES/libstoragemgmt-0.0.8.tar.gz Not sure how you managed that, but you need to fix it. Once that is resolved, I think I can finish out this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #10 from Paul Moore --- (In reply to comment #9) > What I mean is, is it LGPLv2(.1) "only", or "any later version"? LGPLv2.1 "only". > (In reply to comment #7) > > > Building should be verbose: > > > > Is this a requirement for acceptance? I ask because to make this change > > with the current release would either require changes upstream or a patch > > carried with the RPM. > > Whether or not it's a requirement, Ralf is right that it > makes debugging a whole lot easier. When all you have to go on > is a Koji logfile, you'll be grateful that you enabled as much > verbosity as possible. I've made it note of it for future upstream development efforts, but I just wanted to know if it was a requirement which would block the acceptance of the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790805 --- Comment #13 from Adrien Devresse --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lcg-util Short Description: Command line tools for wlcg storage system Owners: adev Branches: el5 el6 f15 f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones --- (In reply to comment #6) > LGPLv2. LGPLv2.1 to be specific, but from what I read on the Fedora wiki > regarding packaging the LGPLv2 tag applies to both LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1. What I mean is, is it LGPLv2(.1) "only", or "any later version"? (In reply to comment #7) > > Building should be verbose: > > Is this a requirement for acceptance? I ask because to make this change > with the current release would either require changes upstream or a patch > carried with the RPM. Whether or not it's a requirement, Ralf is right that it makes debugging a whole lot easier. When all you have to go on is a Koji logfile, you'll be grateful that you enabled as much verbosity as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #8 from Paul Moore --- I've updated the specfile and SRPM to incorporate the feedback from Richard W.M. Jones and I've submitted a new scratch build; links to all are below: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmoore/review/libseccomp/libseccomp.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmoore/review/libseccomp/libseccomp-0.1.0-0.fc18.src.rpm Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4155147 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992 --- Comment #7 from Paul Moore --- (In reply to comment #5) > Building should be verbose: Is this a requirement for acceptance? I ask because to make this change with the current release would either require changes upstream or a patch carried with the RPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992
--- Comment #6 from Paul Moore ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This isn't a review, just some comments.
Regardless, thanks for the feedback.
> I find spec files much easier to read if the fields
> are lined up, like this example:
>
> http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/whenjobs/whenjobs.spec
Noted for future requests, as this is a style issue I'll leave it as-is right
now pending the favorite style of the reviewer.
> Modern spec files *don't* need:
>
> * BuildRoot
> * %clean
> * rm -rf buildroot
> * defattr
>
> All of the above can be removed.
Done.
> Is the license LGPLv2 or LGPLv2+?
LGPLv2. LGPLv2.1 to be specific, but from what I read on the Fedora wiki
regarding packaging the LGPLv2 tag applies to both LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1.
> Instead of ./configure + options, use %configure macro.
While the libseccomp configure script mimics a few of the autoconf options, it
only supports a select few. I think we are better off specifying those few
options by hand then risking a change in the %configure macro causing the
configure/build to fail for this package.
However, if I'm looking at it the wrong way please let me know.
> Instead of CFLAGS=..., use 'make %{_smp_mflags}'
Noted, but unfortunately the package doesn't build correctly with simultaneous
make jobs, e.g. "-j" with "" greater than one. We'll work on this
upstream but until we have it sorted we can't use "%{_smp_mflags}"; I tried
previously and the results were not good.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820995] Review Request: java-oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: java-oauth Short Description: An open protocol to allow API authentication Owners: gil Branches: f17 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827745] Review Request: junicode-fonts - Unicode font for medievalists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827745
--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Review:
+ is ok
- is Need work
+ koji scratch build used ->
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4147740
- rpmlint output is silent for SRPM and for RPM
junicode-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono
space, mono-space, aerospace
junicode-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace ->
mono space, mono-space, aerospace
junicode-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.009-1
['1.01-5.fc18', '1.01-5']
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
+ source files are actual upstream source url
- package meets naming guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named.
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ dist tag is present.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is NOT included in package but is present in font file itself.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
- Buildroot is present.
- %clean is present.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains content and not code.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ translations are not available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Not a GUI application
suggestions:
1)If you only want to add this package in Fedora then you can remove the
following from spec file
a) remove the buildroot tag
b) removal of buildroot in %install (i.e. rm -fr %{buildroot} )
c) %clean section
d) %defattr(-,root,root,-)
2) version field is wrong. It should be 0.7.6 version. check the version by
opening the sfd or ttf file in fontforge application. There click on Elements->
Font Info. Check "PS Names" and to the right of that version of the font.
You included all the three variants of junicode font as a source0, source1 and
source2 files but this is not correct. When upstream will update any single
font then how are you going to update this package. You are using cvs version
of font files. Please see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
You need to use 20120612cvs%{?dist} as a release tag. Then you need to add
comments in spec file just before Source0: that will tell how you created
tarball from upstream cvs checkout. you can write following in spec
# Following tarball is created using upstream checkout as
# cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonym...@junicode.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/junicode
co -P junicode
# cd junicode
# make dist
You need to use this created tarball as a source0 and create a new srpm. Remove
all other sources. So you should be including single tarball file instead to
add individual font files.
3) the comments which are irrelevant should be removed like in this package
#Obsoletes: junicode-fonts < 1.009-3
4) Use %description from upstream website as
A font family especially for medieval scholars, but containing an extensive
enough selection of Unicode characters to be widely useful.
5) Fonts packaging guidelines also suggests to add font information by creating
page on wiki
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830811] Review Request: perl-No-Worries - Perl coding without worries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830811 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830811] Review Request: perl-No-Worries - Perl coding without worries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830811 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830811] Review Request: perl-No-Worries - Perl coding without worries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830811 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830811] Review Request: perl-No-Worries - Perl coding without worries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830811 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.3-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830811] Review Request: perl-No-Worries - Perl coding without worries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830811 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790805 Ricardo Rocha changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Ricardo Rocha --- (In reply to comment #11) > > So two very minor things (bug reference to upstream for > > shared-libs-call-exit and comment with gcc error in epel 5). > > Done, https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgutil/ticket/332 > > > I think the goal was to add a comment explaining why it doesn't build. I > > would > replace the copy paste from the guidelines with a more detailed > > description of > the error, which you'll be putting later in the bug anyway. > > I tried to described it with "compilation error internal to gcc on epel 5". > It is a complexe internal compiler error with a direct dependency ( gfal ) > at the linker level. > I think that describing the full complexity of the problem in a ticket > included in the spec file as soon as the review is done would be better. > I can't explain it in a other way without putting a stacktrace :) That's good enough, you can simply add the link and remove the comment later. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831228] Review Request: pegdown - Java library for Markdown processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831228 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831209] Review Request: parboiled - Java/Scala library providing parsing of input text based on PEGs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831209 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831228] Review Request: pegdown - Java library for Markdown processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831228 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||809950 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||831228 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
