[Bug 830750] Review Request: jbosgi-resolver1 - Standalone OSGi Resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830750 Satya Komaragiri changed: What|Removed |Added 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 658754] Review Request: CUBRID - a very fast and reliable open source SQL database server.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658754 Esen Sagynov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(esen.sagynov@nhn. | |com)| --- Comment #8 from Esen Sagynov --- Hello Cristian, Thank you very much for your valuable input. We'll make the appropriate changes to the spec based on your feedback. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658754] Review Request: CUBRID - a very fast and reliable open source SQL database server.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658754
Cristian Ciupitu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com
Flags||needinfo?(esen.sagynov@nhn.
||com)
--- Comment #7 from Cristian Ciupitu ---
The packaging guidelines[1] say that gcc and gcc-c++ are part of the minimum
build environment which means that you should remove them from the spec,
including glibc-devel (a dependency of gcc) and libstdc++-devel (a dependency
of gcc-c++).
You shouldn't delete the cubrid user when the package is uninstalled. The
guidelines say: "we never remove users or groups created by packages"[2].
Regarding the non-standard-uid/gid warning: why are so many files belonging to
the cubrid user/group? Assign to cubrid only what's needed. There's no need to
assign program files (executables, libraries) to cubrid, only data and
settings.
Try moving {_bindir}/cubrid to a separate Source or in the main archive,
instead of including it in the spec file.
Try replacing chkconfig and service commands from %post and %preun with the
systemd equivalents.
I'm not sure about this, but you should remove the post install message in
keeping with the Unix philosophy that "no news is good news".
P.S. my koji scratch build in case someone else wants to have a look at it -
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4182512
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738744] Review Request: rubygem-execjs - ExecJS lets you run JavaScript code from Ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch --- (In reply to comment #10) Thank you for update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830278] Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - Clojure plugin for Maven
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830278 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to comment #3) > Hi Peter, > > I'm not sure what happened to the source you downloaded -- I just retried: > > wget --content-disposition > https://github.com/talios/clojure-maven-plugin/tarball/clojure-maven-plugin- > 1.3.10 > > and get this checksum: > ✗ sha256sum > talios-clojure-maven-plugin-clojure-maven-plugin-1.3.10-0-g48bc0ce.tar.gz > 780aec6bcd6d2cd0eb433546bedd22e72055a8a5834a6a617d70d3256d4c979f > talios-clojure-maven-plugin-clojure-maven-plugin-1.3.10-0-g48bc0ce.tar.gz > > just as the one in the source RPM I posted. Could you try again? Could be a > Github glitch, I don't know. Yep, I tried again and now I've got the same checksum. Perhaps either me did something wrong or GitHub delivered me something different. I don't see any other issues so this package is 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 830155] Review Request: unlambda - An interpreter of the Unlambda language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830155 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: unlambda Short Description: An interpreter of the Unlambda language Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: haskell-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 785448] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Autoloader - Horde Autoloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785448 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-06-20 23:15:55 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785606] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Test - Horde testing base classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785606 --- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout --- I believe I have fixed these issues. Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Test.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Test-1.3.0-2.fc16.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 785606] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Test - Horde testing base classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785606 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||785480 (horde-log), 785493 ||(horde-cli) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785493] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Cli - Horde Command Line Interface API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785493 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||785606 (horde-test) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785480] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Log - Horde Logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785480 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||785606 (horde-test) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785496] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-History - API for tracking the history of an object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785496 --- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout --- I believe I have fixed all of these issues: Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-History.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-History-1.0.1-1.fc16.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 830155] Review Request: unlambda - An interpreter of the Unlambda language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830155
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-unlambda-0.1-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-unlambda-devel-0.1-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm unlambda-0.1-2.fc15.src.rpm
unlambda-0.1-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../unlambda.spec
unlambda.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Unlambda
The name of the package is repeated in its summary. This is often redundant
information and looks silly in various programs' output. Make the summary
brief and to the point without including redundant information in it.
unlambda.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Unlambda
The name of the package is repeated in its summary. This is often redundant
information and looks silly in various programs' output. Make the summary
brief and to the point without including redundant information in it.
unlambda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unlambda
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
GPLv2.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum unlambda-0.1.tar.gz
2d31c90b3888043b8de77bb87f88bfcb unlambda-0.1.tar.gz
md5sum unlambda-0.1-2.fc16.src/unlambda-0.1.tar.gz
2d31c90b3888043b8de77bb87f88bfcb unlambda-0.1-2.fc16.src/unlambda-0.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-unlambda
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(unlambda-0.1) = 517c83933e1752a68650a35017b99198 is needed by
(installed) ghc-unlambda-devel-0.1-2.fc15.x86_64
ghc-unlambda = 0.1-2.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-unlambda-devel-0.1-2.fc15.x86_64
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Loaded Language.Unlambda into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
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 832504] Review Request: pesign - Utility for signing UEFI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 --- Comment #8 from Peter Jones --- *** Bug 834000 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834000] New Package SCM Request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834000 Peter Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-06-20 22:11:51 --- Comment #2 from Peter Jones --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 832504 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832504] Review Request: pesign - Utility for signing UEFI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 Peter Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Peter Jones --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pesign Short Description: Signing utilities for UEFI binaries. Owners: pjones Branches: F18 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 785495] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Data - Horde Data API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785495 --- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout --- I believe I have fixed the issues you have mentioned. Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Data.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Data-1.0.7-1.fc16.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 785494] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Compress - Horde Compression API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785494 --- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout --- I believe I have fixed those issues: Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Compress.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Compress-1.0.7-1.fc16.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 785494] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Compress - Horde Compression API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785494 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||785452 ||(horde-stream-filter) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785452] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Stream-Filter - Horde Stream filters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785452 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||785494 (horde-compress) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834132] Review Request: subethasmtp - SubEtha SMTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834132 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 834132] New: Review Request: subethasmtp - SubEtha SMTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834132 Bug ID: 834132 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: subethasmtp - SubEtha SMTP Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/subethasmtp.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/subethasmtp-3.1.6-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: SubEtha SMTP is an easy-to-use server-side SMTP library for Java. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167 Gary Gatling changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org Component|Package Review |0x --- Comment #12 from Gary Gatling --- OK. VirtualGL added as review request at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127 Again, thanks so much Robin! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834127] Review Request: VirtualGL - A toolkit for displaying OpenGL applications to thin clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127 Gary Gatling changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Gary Gatling --- Hello. This package was actually created by Robin Lee. It is a dependency for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167 This is one of the first packages I have submitted and I need a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834127] New: Review Request: VirtualGL - A toolkit for displaying OpenGL applications to thin clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127 Bug ID: 834127 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: VirtualGL - A toolkit for displaying OpenGL applications to thin clients Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/spec/1/VirtualGL.spec SRPM URL: http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/SRPMS/VirtualGL-2.3-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: VirtualGL is a toolkit that allows most Unix/Linux OpenGL applications to be remotely displayed with hardware 3D acceleration to thin clients, regardless of whether the clients have 3D capabilities, and regardless of the size of the 3D data being rendered or the speed of the network. Using the vglrun script, the VirtualGL "faker" is loaded into an OpenGL application at run time. The faker then intercepts a handful of GLX calls, which it reroutes to the server's X display (the "3D X Server", which presumably has a 3D accelerator attached.) The GLX commands are also dynamically modified such that all rendering is redirected into a Pbuffer instead of a window. As each frame is rendered by the application, the faker reads back the pixels from the 3D accelerator and sends them to the "2D X Server" for compositing into the appropriate X Window. VirtualGL can be used to give hardware-accelerated 3D capabilities to VNC or other X proxies that either lack OpenGL support or provide it through software rendering. In a LAN environment, VGL can also be used with its built-in high-performance image transport, which sends the rendered 3D images to a remote client (vglclient) for compositing on a remote X server. VirtualGL also supports image transport plugins, allowing the rendered 3D images to be sent or captured using other mechanisms. VirtualGL is based upon ideas presented in various academic papers on this topic, including "A Generic Solution for Hardware-Accelerated Remote Visualization" (Stegmaier, Magallon, Ertl 2002) and "A Framework for Interactive Hardware Accelerated Remote 3D-Visualization" (Engel, Sommer, Ertl 2000.) Fedora Account System Username: gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > - The .desktop file is not handled correct, > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files > > I have read these instructions more. Could you tell me more detailed what's > wrong with it? The .desktop file is not installed. > > - http://evoluspencil.googlecode.com/files/pencil-2.0.tar.gz gives an 404 > > error > > Actually, the upstream developer did not release the whole software source > as a tar file like this. He sent me this SVN link: > http://evoluspencil.googlecode.com/svn/branches/pencil-2.0 > I got sources, change some file/folder locations then build myself (of > course, I notified my changes to him) It's not going to fly...downloading source code, modify it locally, and then use that code is not the way it works. When you are using a scm checkout/snapshot, notes about the details should be mentioned in the spec file and the numbering should reflect it too. I suggest that you try to convince upstream to make a proper release. btw, rpmlint says: [fab@laptop11 noarch]$ rpmlint pencil-2.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm pencil.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/pencil/content/pencil/templates/ODT/default.ODT/Configurations2/accelerator/current.xml pencil.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/pencil/skin/classic/pencil.css pencil.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/pencil/content/pencil/templates/HTML/default.HTML/Resources/SampleStyle.css pencil.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pencil 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204 --- Comment #5 from Ross Delinger --- Currently blocking on the need for an updated python-pyramid version. Current repository version is 1.1.2, python-pyramid-tm 0.4 requires python-pyramid 1.2dev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825599] Review Request: samdump2 - Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows SAM hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[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 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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint samdump2-debuginfo-3.0.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm
samdump2.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syskey -> passkey
samdump2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syskey -> passkey
samdump2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootkey -> boot key,
boot-key, bootee
samdump2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt,
decry-pt, decry
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
samdump2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syskey -> passkey
samdump2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syskey -> passkey
samdump2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootkey -> boot key,
boot-key, bootee
samdump2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt,
decry-pt, decry
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/fab/reviews/825599/samdump2-3.0.0.tar.bz2 :
MD5SUM this package : 5dac2dc3f8171a3dc86053d923a0e6f5
MD5SUM upstream package : 5dac2dc3f8171a3dc86053d923a0e6f5
[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.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upst
[Bug 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev-rpm - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #3 from Chris Lockfort --- Great. Flagged this rhel_rawhide as I would ideally like it in RHEL, as to use it as a dependancy for new features on the tuna package already in RHEL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev-rpm - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 Chris Lockfort changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?, rhel-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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev-rpm - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 Chris Lockfort 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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev-rpm - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164
Ross Delinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ross Delinger ---
Only error I saw was an explicit requires on libudev, and since this package is
for udev, it makes sense to have that. Approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: 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
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)" For detailed output of
licensecheck see file: /home/rossdylan/rpmbuild/REVIEWS/833164-python-
pyudev/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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 int
[Bug 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev-rpm - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 Ross Delinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rossdy...@csh.rit.edu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rossdy...@csh.rit.edu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ross Delinger --- I got this one -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833511] Review Request: dnf - A Yum fork on top of libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833511
--- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten ---
Thanks, some more items.
- seems to mix tab and whitespace
- this is two buildrequires on one line: BuildRequires:cmake python2 :-)
- file listing is recursive by default and you need to own the dir itself,
change
%{python_sitelib}/dnf/* to %{python_sitelib}/dnf/
- with only %config(noreplace) %{confdir}/dnf.conf, %{confdir} ends up
unowned, add
a %dir %{confdir} line to file listing.
- use %global not %define
- still %dist in changelogs?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204 Ross Delinger changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(rossdy...@csh.rit | |.edu) | --- Comment #4 from Ross Delinger --- All but unit tests fixed in the latest version -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834098] Review Request: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834098 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-m2ext Short Description: M2Crypto Extensions Owners: ralph Branches: 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 834098] Review Request: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834098 Ross Delinger changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rossdy...@csh.rit.edu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834098] Review Request: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834098 Ross Delinger changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Ross Delinger --- Looks like those .so files are never versioned... 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 829970] Review Request: synthv1 - a 4 oscillator subtractive polyphonic synthesizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829970 --- Comment #4 from Jørn Lomax --- Now that i know how, here is a more formal (but still informal) review: There where a couple of rpmlint warnings: rpmlint synthv1-0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc18.i686.rpm synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subtractive -> subtracting, subt$ synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subtractive -> subtractin$ synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> Fox, fax, fix synthv1.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1-1 ['0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc1$ synthv1.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary synthv1_jack 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings The second to last one can be fixed by just bumping the version number in the spec. The last line is fine, as synthv1_jack does not have a man page rpmlint lv2-synthv1-0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc18.i686.rpm lv2-synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subtractive -> subtra$ lv2-synthv1.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I would imagine it has the same documentation as synthv1, and i ll take a guess you are aware of it. [!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: lv2-synthv1-0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/lv2/synthv1.lv2/synthv1.so Since this .so file is application spesific, so there is no need for a -devel 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 834098] Review Request: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834098
--- Comment #1 from Ross Delinger ---
The only issue I can see is the unversioned .so files.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Note: python-m2ext-0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
packages/m2ext/_m2ext.so
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: 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
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE" For detailed
output of licensecheck see file: /home/rossdylan/834098-python-
m2ext/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve
[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hobbes1...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204
Ralph Bean changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(rossdy...@csh.rit
||.edu)
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean ---
A couple issues before I can approve it.
MUST:
- The description is too long. It should be 1-2 paragraphs.
- The changelog is incorrectly formatted, entries should begin with something
like:
* Wed Jun 20 2012 Ralph Bean - 0.4-1
SHOULD:
- This package has unit tests. You should run them in a %check section. See
other python spec files for an example.
SUGGESTIONS:
- Use %{modname} and %{version} in the Source0 field. This makes future
updates to your package a breeze.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck
see file: /home/threebean/reviews/833204-python-pyramid-
tm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: 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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]:
[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas --- And as of now python-xlwt is in updates-testing for F16 and F17 The test tool openerp-client is under review in bug 818805. I think this bug is ready for 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 834098] Review Request: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834098 Ross Delinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rossdy...@csh.rit.edu 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 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rb...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean --- I'll take this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834098] New: Review Request: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834098
Bug ID: 834098
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: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
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/python-m2ext.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-m2ext-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description:
This package contains some extended functions which are not (yet)
available in M2Crypto http://chandlerproject.org/Projects/MeTooCrypto>
trunk.
Fedora Account System Username: ralph
rpmlint output:
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS}/python-m2ext*
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-6-x86_64/result/*.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
koji f17 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4181140
koji el6 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4181143
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822491] Review Request: erlang-sext - Sortable Erlang Term Serialization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822491 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-sext-0.4.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828223] Review Request: properties-maven-plugin - Properties Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828223 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- properties-maven-plugin-1.0-0.1.alpha2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822472] Review Request: erlang-merge_index - An Erlang library for storing ordered sets on disk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822472 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-merge_index-1.1.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827818] Review Request: seivot - Benchmarking tool for backup programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827818 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- seivot-1.16-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810928] Review Request: sticky-notes - Sticky notes is a free and open source paste-bin application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810928 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- Package sticky-notes-0.3.09062012.4-5.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing sticky-notes-0.3.09062012.4-5.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-9714/sticky-notes-0.3.09062012.4-5.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- libstoragemgmt-0.0.9-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827818] Review Request: seivot - Benchmarking tool for backup programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827818 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-06-20 15:23:24 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- seivot-1.16-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Version|16 |17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834070] New: Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 Bug ID: 834070 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: 17 Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dpie...@redhat.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-qpid.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-qpid-0.16-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework. Fedora Account System Username: mcpierce -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #8 from Matthew Woehlke --- Confirmed items from comment #4 are fixed (also that vim auto-syntax now works, as advertised). The only outstanding issue I see is the missing manpage, which IMO should not be a blocker. Now... just need someone that's already a packager to verify :-). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834069] Review Request: Clean - The Clean language compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834069] New: Review Request: Clean - The Clean language compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069 Bug ID: 834069 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: Clean - The Clean language compiler Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/Clean.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/Clean-2.4-1.src.rpm Description: The Clean language compiler. Released by the MBSD of the Radboud University Nijmegen. Fedora Account System Username: puiterwijk Succesfull Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4180760 This is my first package, and I am seeking someone who wants to sponsor me. To clarify on the rpmlint messages: The .c and .h files may be required during compilation of a program using the Clean libraries. Also the empty files are provided by upstream, and should not be removed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480 --- Comment #18 from srineth --- This is new Spec file and src.rpm file SPEC : http://srineth.fedorapeople.org/limesurvey.spec src.rpm : http://srineth.fedorapeople.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 834000] New Package SCM Request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834000 --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla --- Close this and file the request in the Review BZ. 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 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #36 from MartinKG --- Building SD2.0.0 binaries for Fedora 16/17/18 A description is now available on the speed dreams homepage under: http://dev.speed-dreams.org/Martin/index.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834000] New Package SCM Request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834000 Peter Jones 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 830709] Review Request: robert-hooke - Extension mechanism for Clojure functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830709 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- robert-hooke-1.2.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/robert-hooke-1.2.0-2.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 830709] Review Request: robert-hooke - Extension mechanism for Clojure functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830709 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- robert-hooke-1.2.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/robert-hooke-1.2.0-2.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 830709] Review Request: robert-hooke - Extension mechanism for Clojure functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830709 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 830362] Review Request: kscd - CD Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830362 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-20 12:42:22 --- Comment #9 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 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #11 from Eric Sandeen --- And "which" (from the "which" package) is also invoked. I'm not sure if things like util-linux & which must be listed as Requires; they are not needed for BuildRequires since they are included in the minimum build environment, but I can't find a similar exception list for Requires... will let you know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754437] Review Request: mingw-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754437 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Berrange --- New packages using Mingw64 toolchain http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libvirt-glib/mingw-libvirt-glib-0.0.8-1.fc18.src.rpm http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libvirt-glib/mingw-libvirt-glib.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #12 from Eric Sandeen --- Ok, I've confirmed that even which & util-linux should be listed as Requires: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 --- Comment #12 from MartinKG --- %changelog * Wed Jun 20 2012 Martin Gansser - 2.1-6 - changed group and user for fedora to apache SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-6.fc17/tntnet-2.1-6.fc17.src.rpm?a=tFMXkddUWZc Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-6.fc17/tntnet.spec?a=kM34wjXeOIQ reviewer are welcome ! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #10 from Eric Sandeen --- Hm package list was from an older system, so s/util-linux-ng/util-linux/ at least. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879
--- Comment #9 from Eric Sandeen ---
Ok, just looking at "command = " lines, we have these things being executed as
commands (this is a little crude, not all are actually system commands I think)
blkid
btrfs
cryptsetup
device
dmsetup
filesystem
fsck.{0}
lvcreate
lvm
lvremove
lvresize
mkfs.{0}
mkfs.btrfs
mount
pvremove
remove
resize
resize2fs
subvolume
tune2fs
umount
vgcreate
vgextend
vgreduce
vgremove
which
wipefs
xfs_check
xfs_db
xfs_growfs
which seems to correspond to these packages:
cryptsetup-luks
device-mapper
e2fsprogs
lvm2
util-linux-ng
xfsprogs
Perhaps these should be explicitly listed as runtime requirements until you are
sure that it can function reasonably without them in place?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879
--- Comment #8 from Eric Sandeen ---
All this is OK (the MUSTS):
rpmlint is amazingly quiet ;)
package naming is fine
specfile name matches
AFAICT, it follows python packaging rules, but I am no expert there!
License (GPLv2+) is acceptable for Fedora.
License matches license statements in source
COPYING file contains license and is in %doc
Specfile is legible and in American e=English
Source matches upstream
Upstream source URL is fine
package built fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4180107
RPM does own the two dirs it creates
File perms seem fine
Macros are consistently used in the specfile
Package contains permissible content (code)
Doc files work properly with --excludedocs; there is no %doc directive but
%{_docdir} seems to imply that.
No static or devel libraries, so no issues there.
Questions / suggestions:
For runtime requires, I wonder about the fs utilities it invokes. If it
handles it gracefully when they are missing, probably no need for a runtime
requirement, but if not, perhaps you should require those packages at least
for now?
I'll try to grep through & see what all might get executed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 --- Comment #8 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 830362] Review Request: kscd - CD Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830362 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter --- thanks. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kscd Short Description: CD player Owners: than,rdieter,jreznik,rnovacek,ltinkl,kkofler Branches: 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 756776] Review Request: mingw-libosinfo - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756776 Daniel Berrange changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mingw32-libosinfo - MinGW |mingw-libosinfo - MinGW |Windows libvirt |Windows libvirt |virtualization library |virtualization library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754437] Review Request: mingw-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754437 Daniel Berrange changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mingw32-libvirt-glib - |mingw-libvirt-glib - |libvirt glib integration|libvirt glib integration |for event |for event -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756776] Review Request: mingw32-libosinfo - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756776 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Berrange --- New SRPM + spec file http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libosinfo/mingw-libosinfo-0.1.2-1.fc18.src.rpm http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libosinfo/mingw-libosinfo.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #7 from Eric Sandeen --- Ok, editorial nitpicks: > System Storage Manager provides easy to use command line interface to manage "provides an easy to use ..." > technologies via single unified interface. "technologies via a single unified interface." > You should install the ssm if you need Should probably say "You should install system-storage-manager if you need" ... And maybe 2 spaces (vs 1) after every sentence in the %description? Now I'll go point by point through review guidelines to make sure I'm not missing anything. Pretty simple specfile though! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824334] Review Request: libkolabxml - Kolab XML Format library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824334 --- Comment #6 from Jeroen van Meeuwen --- Spec URL: http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/libkolabxml/plain/libkolabxml.spec SRPM URL: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/redhat/kolab-3.0/el6/development/SRPMS/libkolabxml-0.6-0.4.el6.kolab_3.0.src.rpm Cleaned up some other potentially review-blocking items as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834000] New: New Package SCM Request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834000 Bug ID: 834000 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: New Package SCM Request Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: pjo...@redhat.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pesign Short Description: Signing utilities for UEFI binaries. Owners: pjones Branches: F18 InitialCC: Review is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828223] Review Request: properties-maven-plugin - Properties Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828223 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- properties-maven-plugin-1.0-0.1.alpha2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/properties-maven-plugin-1.0-0.1.alpha2.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 828223] Review Request: properties-maven-plugin - Properties Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828223 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 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #6 from Eric Sandeen --- Thanks Dan. Finally getting the review going today. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Jaroslav Reznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Reznik --- Thanks Rex, 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 824334] Review Request: libkolabxml - Kolab XML Format library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824334 --- Comment #5 from Jeroen van Meeuwen --- New SPEC: http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/libkolabxml/plain/libkolabxml.spec New SRPM: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/redhat/kolab-3.0/el6/development/SRPMS/libkolabxml-0.6-0.3.el6.kolab_3.0.src.rpm Dropped the build requirement for xsd-utils. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830857] Review Request: telepathy-logger-qt - Telepathy Logging for Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830857 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-20 10:02:58 --- Comment #5 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 830852] Review Request: ktp-call-ui - Telepathy call handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830852 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-20 10:02:02 --- Comment #5 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 824334] Review Request: libkolabxml - Kolab XML Format library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824334 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert --- Found the package. Hopefully adding a link here will allow the fedora-review tool to process this request: Spec URL: http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/libkolabxml/plain/libkolabxml.spec SRPM URL: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/redhat/kolab-3.0/el6/development/SRPMS/libkolabxml-0.6-0.2.el6.kolab_3.0.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 824334] Review Request: libkolabxml - Kolab XML Format library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824334 --- Comment #3 from Jeroen van Meeuwen --- As said, the latest SRPM is linked from the repoview page (and currently is http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/redhat/kolab-3.0/el6/development/SRPMS/libkolabxml-0.6-0.2.el6.kolab_3.0.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 824334] Review Request: libkolabxml - Kolab XML Format library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824334 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert --- The links to the SRPMs give 4ß4, please fix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833855] New: Review Request: console-setup - Tools for configuring the console using X Window System keymaps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833855 Bug ID: 833855 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: console-setup - Tools for configuring the console using X Window System keymaps Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: vcrho...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/console-setup/console-setup.spec SRPM URL: http://vcrhonek.fedorapeople.org/console-setup/console-setup-1.76-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This package provides the console with the same keyboard configuration scheme that X Window System has. Besides the keyboard, the package configures also the font on the console. It includes a rich collection of fonts and supports several languages that would be otherwise unsupported on the console (such as Armenian, Georgian, Lao and Thai). Fedora Account System Username: vcrhonek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824334] Review Request: libkolabxml - Kolab XML Format library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824334 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||833853 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833853] Review Request: libkolab - Kolab Format Handler library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833853 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Depends On||824334 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Jeroen van Meeuwen --- Add dependency on libkolabxml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833853] New: Review Request: libkolab - Kolab Format Handler library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833853 Bug ID: 833853 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: libkolab - Kolab Format Handler library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: kana...@kanarip.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/libkolab/plain/libkolab.spec SRPM URL: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/fedora/kolab-3.0/f17/development/SRPMS/libkolab-0.3-3.fc17.kolab_3.0.src.rpm Description: libkolab is a Kolab Format handler library needed for routine operations against groupware data stored in Kolab XML format. Fedora Account System Username: kanarip The latest SRPM can routinely be found linked from this page: http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/fedora/kolab-3.0/f17/development/SRPMS/repoview/libkolab.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822472] Review Request: erlang-merge_index - An Erlang library for storing ordered sets on disk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822472 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-merge_index-1.1.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-merge_index-1.1.0-2.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 822472] Review Request: erlang-merge_index - An Erlang library for storing ordered sets on disk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822472 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-merge_index-1.1.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-merge_index-1.1.0-2.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 822472] Review Request: erlang-merge_index - An Erlang library for storing ordered sets on disk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822472 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 833501] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-Layers - Querying your file handle capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833501 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-PerlIO-Layers-0.010-1. ||fc18 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-20 09:06:04 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. I added the Module::Build version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
