[Bug 833154] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jeetools - Frameworks and tools for Eclipse, focused on the development of J2EE artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833154 Krzysztof Daniel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kdan...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kdan...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Krzysztof Daniel --- I'll review 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 834507] New: Review Request: python-fuzzywuzzy - Fuzzy string matching in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834507 Bug ID: 834507 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-fuzzywuzzy - Fuzzy string matching in Python Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: bkab...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/fuzzywuzzy/python-fuzzywuzzy.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/fuzzywuzzy/python-fuzzywuzzy-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4186801 Description: Fuzzy string matching like a boss. Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834501] New: Review Request: python-sure - Assertion toolbox for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834501 Bug ID: 834501 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-sure - Assertion toolbox for python Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: bkab...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/sure/python-sure.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/sure/python-sure-0.10.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4186773 Description: A Python assertion toolbox that works fine with nose. Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799089] Review Request: dyninst - An API for Run-time Code Generation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799089 Frank Ch. Eigler changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Frank Ch. Eigler --- Nice job, the basic requirements now appear to be met. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834481] New: Review Request: lttng-tools - LTTng control and utility programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834481 Bug ID: 834481 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: lttng-tools - LTTng control and utility programs Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: yannick.bross...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-tools-2.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This package provides the unified interface to control both the LTTng kernel and userspace (UST) tracers. Fedora Account System Username: greenscientist -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834478] New: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Notification - Horde Notification System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834478 Bug ID: 834478 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-horde-Horde-Notification - Horde Notification System Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: n...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Notification.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Notification-1.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: A library implementing a subject-observer pattern for raising and showing messages of different types and to different listeners. Fedora Account System Username: nb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825854] Review Request: zita-alsa-pcmi - alsa pcm libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #23 from Orcan Ogetbil ---
Thank you for the update. I did a full review on this:
! rpmlint says
zita-alsa-pcmi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clalsadrv ->
clausal
zita-alsa-pcmi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise ->
initialize, initial, inessential
zita-alsa-pcmi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hw -> he, h,
w
zita-alsa-pcmi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap -> map,
m map, mamma
zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clalsadrv ->
clausal
zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise ->
initialize, initial, inessential
zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hw -> he, h, w
zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap -> map, m
map, mamma
Let us ignore the above.
zita-alsa-pcmi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0/apps/mtdm.cc
zita-alsa-pcmi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0/apps/alsa_loopback.cc
zita-alsa-pcmi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0/apps/alsa_delay.cc
zita-alsa-pcmi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0/apps/mtdm.h
zita-alsa-pcmi-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation
zita-alsa-pcmi-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alsa_loopback
zita-alsa-pcmi-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alsa_delay
zita-alsa-pcmi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
It would be good to contact upstream to do something for the above.
! For both of the patches you can do something like
-CXXFLAGS += -O2 -Wall -MMD -MP
+CXXFLAGS += -O2 -Wall -MMD -MP -I../libs $(OPTFLAGS)
so that you don't remove the upstream optimization flags when no OPTFLAGS was
specified. Your OPTFLAGS will override whatever there was initially.
Please submit your patches upstream and leave a comment in your specfile about
the patch status. A link to upstream bugtracker or mailing list archive would
be nice.
* The utils subpackge should have license GPLv2+ and GPLv3+. Please take a look
at the source code under apps/*. Also please indicate this in the specfile as a
comment (which files are GPLv2+, which are GPLv3+ etc.).
* The devel package MUST require alsa-lib-devel. See libs/zita-alsa-pcmi.h
* Please replace %{?smp_mflags} with %{?_smp_mflags}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834477] New: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Itip - iTip invitation response handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834477 Bug ID: 834477 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-horde-Horde-Itip - iTip invitation response handling Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: n...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Itip.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Itip-1.0.7-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This package to generates MIME encapsuled responses to iCalendar invitations. Fedora Account System Username: nb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826563] Review Request: Fuel Manager - keep track of your fuel mileage and consumption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826563 Nick Bebout 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 826563] Review Request: Fuel Manager - keep track of your fuel mileage and consumption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826563 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|n...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Nick Bebout --- Please fix your sources, the md5sum of the tarball in your srpm and the file at the url in Source0 do not match. Everything else looks good now, except for you don't need to add gcc-c++ to BuildRequires, it's on the list of exceptions. With these changes, this package is APPROVED. I have sponsored you into the packager group, congratulations! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834461] New: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Imap-Client - Horde IMAP abstraction interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834461 Bug ID: 834461 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-horde-Horde-Imap-Client - Horde IMAP abstraction interface Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: n...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Imap-Client.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Imap-Client-1.5.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: An abstracted API interface to various IMAP4rev1 (RFC 3501) backend drivers. Fedora Account System Username: nb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834457] New: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Crypt - Horde Cryptography API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834457 Bug ID: 834457 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-horde-Horde-Crypt - Horde Cryptography API Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: n...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Crypt.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Crypt-1.1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The Horde_Crypt package class provides an API for various cryptographic systems. Fedora Account System Username: nb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785465] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Group - Horde User Groups System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785465 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Group.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Group-1.0.5-1.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 833573] Review Request: nettle - Low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833573 --- Comment #5 from Michael Cronenworth --- (In reply to comment #4) > I like separating the devel packages so if you install one you don't > automatically pull in the other library. The only problem with splitting -devel packages is that the include files are stored in the same, single directory so I would need to create a package to own the include directory so that I can seperate the headers into their respective -devel package. Debian packages it the way I wanted to originally so I think we're best off keeping to one -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 785489] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Vfs - Virtual File System API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785489 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Vfs.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Vfs-1.0.9-1.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 785487] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Tree - Horde Tree API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785487 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Tree.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Tree-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 785451] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Token - Horde Token API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785451 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Token.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Token-1.1.7-1.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 785457] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Flowed - Horde API for flowed text as per RFC 3676
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785457 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Text-Flowed.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Text-Flowed-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 785486] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter - Horde Text Filter API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785486 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-1.1.5-1.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 785455] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Support.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Support-1.0.2-1.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 785471] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Stream-Wrapper - Horde Stream wrappers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785471 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Stream-Wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Stream-Wrapper-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 785474] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Prefs - Horde Preferences API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785474 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Prefs.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Prefs-1.1.8-1.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 785473] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Perms - Horde Permissions System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785473 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Perms.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Perms-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 785460] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Mime - Horde MIME Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785460 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Mime.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Mime-1.6.1-1.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 785453] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Mail - Horde Mail Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785453 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Mail.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Mail-1.2.0-1.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 756776] Review Request: mingw-libosinfo - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756776 --- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek --- Okay, let's go: - The BuildRoot tag is not needed any more with modern RPM, so it can be removed - The Requires: pkgconfig is currently mentioned in the global section (the mingw-libosinfo). However, as no mingw-libosinfo binary rpm is generated, this Requires flag doesn't have any effect. You might want to move it to the %package sections for the mingw32-libosinfo and mingw64-libosinfo packages - The quotes which you used in the %mingw_make_install "DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" aren't needed any more and can be removed - The %defattr tags in the %files sections is also unneeded with modern 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 785468] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Image - Horde Image API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785468 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Image.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Image-1.0.10-1.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 785466] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Http - Horde HTTP libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785466 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Http.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Http-1.1.1-1.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 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #14 from Richard Shaw --- Nah, good enough for me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas --- If you insist, I will certainly drop it. But I prefer to use it - it's a question of keeping rpmlint output at a reasonable size. Without the patch, the output is just insane. And since the guidelines allows it, why not? Of course, if they release another version without applying the patch it's some work. But it's generated by a script, so I'm not that worried. I can even drop it at an update. But for the review, I think it's an advantage to keep it. But, like I said, it's your decision. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785463] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Form - Horde Form API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785463 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Form.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Form-1.1.0-1.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 826563] Review Request: Fuel Manager - keep track of your fuel mileage and consumption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826563 --- Comment #5 from kc8...@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: http://kc8hfi.fedorapeople.org/fuelmanager.spec New SRPM URL: http://kc8hfi.fedorapeople.org/fuelmanager-0.3.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4184879 1. removed the defattr 2. added hicolor-icon-theme to build requirements 3. using more wildcards in %files I think I've moved everything to one style, instead of mixing macro and variable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785472] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Db - Horde Database Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785472 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Db.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Db-1.2.1-1.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 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > Also, it's never OK to patch licenses.[cut] You > > > might as well send them your patch. > Already done, see the comment attached to the patch. Yup, sorry. I use puTTY at work to ssh into my home machine and the blue on black is almost unreadable :) I would just drop the patch since it's not a blocker and let it be fixed on the next upstream 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 785492] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Controller - Horde Controller libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785492 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Controller.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Controller-1.0.2-1.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 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Also, it's never OK to patch licenses.[cut] You > > might as well send them your patch. Already done, see the comment attached to the patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785450] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Cache - Horde Caching API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785450 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Cache.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Cache-1.0.5-1.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 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas --- (In reply to comment #8) > Also, it's never OK to patch licenses. The bad FSF address is not considered > a blocker but it is recommended to at least tell upstream about it. You > might as well send them your patch. License files can't be patched, agreed. But license text in source can be patched, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address (OK, I actually wrote that :), but it's still kind of a reference) (In reply to comment #9) > Duh, I looked at your LICENSING file... never mind. But perhaps using the > guidelines version of the comment and file name would be good? > > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING Sure, I can change it according to that. I read this as you hadn't noticed the break-down when you wrote comment #7 Holding updated links in wait for more remarks or conclusions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785449] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Browser - Horde Browser API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785449 --- Comment #1 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Browser.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Browser-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 785447] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Auth - Horde Authentication API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785447 --- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout --- Updated Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Auth.spec SRPM URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Auth-1.4.9-1.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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-pyudev-0.15-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyudev-0.15-1.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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 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 816124] Review Request: libdb4 - Oracle (Berkeley) DB package 4.x.x series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816124 --- Comment #38 from Jindrich Novy --- It should be in sync now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw --- Duh, I looked at your LICENSING file... never mind. But perhaps using the guidelines version of the comment and file name would be good? # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271 --- Comment #8 from Richard Shaw --- Also, it's never OK to patch licenses. The bad FSF address is not considered a blocker but it is recommended to at least tell upstream about it. You might as well send them your patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817271] Review Request:openerp - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817271
--- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw ---
Ok, licenses is one of my weak points and I'm not sure you have all the bases
covered but I could definitely be wrong :)
Licenses detected in source:
$ licensecheck -r . | awk -F ": " '{ print $2 }' | sort | uniq -c
1 AGPL
22 AGPL (v2.1 or later) LGPL (v2.1 or later)
1276 AGPL (v3 or later)
9 AGPL (v3 or later) GENERATED FILE
2 AGPL (v3 or later) LGPL (v3 or later)
5 BSD (2 clause)
6 BSD (3 clause)
7 BSD (4 clause)
43 GPL
2 GPL GENERATED FILE
40 GPL (v2 or later)
41 GPL (v3 or later)
1 LGPL
1 *No copyright* AGPL (v3 or later)
43 *No copyright* GENERATED FILE
161 *No copyright* UNKNOWN
4 UNKNOWN
Is just using "AGPLv3+" good enough to cover all of the AGPLs listed? Same for
GPL. Also, BSD (4 clause) should be referenced as "BSD with advertising"...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #12 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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 Chris Lockfort changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Chris Lockfort --- :-/ Definitely. Changed. Now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808258] Review Request: python-sh - Python module to simplify calling shell commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808258 --- Comment #11 from Andy Grover --- Hi Ralph. Even if upstream isn't receptive (it's been 6 days, how long were you thinking we should wait?), I don't know if we'd need to "fork", we could just run the translation (and add the note to the README saying what we did) both in the build process. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would let us move forward on getting this included, and could easily be removed if the issue is addressed upstream. Also, I'm assuming you'd be ok with co-maintaining this with me? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- I don't think it took, I see clockf...@csh.rit.edu still. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816124] Review Request: libdb4 - Oracle (Berkeley) DB package 4.x.x series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816124 --- Comment #37 from Jon Ciesla --- Spec and SRPM spec don't match, please post new, matching URLs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816124] Review Request: libdb4 - Oracle (Berkeley) DB package 4.x.x series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816124 --- Comment #36 from Jindrich Novy --- Sorry for delay. I'm back from holidays. The spec & src.rpm is now updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802549] Review Request: axis2 - Java-based Web Services / SOAP / WSDL engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802549 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- axis2-1.6.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/axis2-1.6.1-3.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 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla --- Duplicate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 - 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 - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #9 from Chris Lockfort --- FAS email changed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? Last Closed||2012-06-21 14:02:43 --- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas --- Build OK for rawhide, f17, f16. Closing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Email address clockf...@csh.rit.edu is not a valid bugzilla email address. Either make a bugzilla account with that email address or change your email address in the Fedora Account System https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ to a valid bugzilla email address and try again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #18 from Fedora Update System --- lightdm-gtk-1.1.6-3.fc16,lightdm-kde-0.1.1-6.fc16,lightdm-1.2.2-15.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lightdm-gtk-1.1.6-3.fc16,lightdm-kde-0.1.1-6.fc16,lightdm-1.2.2-15.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 819953] Review Request: lightdm - Lightweight Display Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819953 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- lightdm-kde-0.1.1-6.fc17,lightdm-gtk-1.1.6-3.fc17,lightdm-1.2.2-15.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lightdm-kde-0.1.1-6.fc17,lightdm-gtk-1.1.6-3.fc17,lightdm-1.2.2-15.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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #7 from Chris Lockfort --- Fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 - 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 - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 Chris Lockfort changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-pyudev-rpm - udev|python-pyudev - udev |bindings for python |bindings for python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Summary and SCM package names don't match, please correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pwout...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters --- I'll take it for nostalgic reasons :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 831491] Review Request: php-zmq - PHP 0MQ/zmq/zeromq extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831491 --- Comment #9 from Ralph Bean --- I forgot to mark the bug number in bodhi, but this has been pushed to testing. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-9583/php-zmq-0.6.0-4.20120613git516bd6f.fc17 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-6182/php-zmq-0.6.0-4.20120613git516bd6f.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 833573] Review Request: nettle - Low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833573 --- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > 2. I know hogweed is a library and on some other distros library packages > > are always prefixed with lib, but as we don't have that convention in > > Fedora, would it not be better to call the hogweed package just "hogweed" to > > be consistent with "nettle"? > > The nettle documentation refers to it as "libhogweed". An alternative name I > could give this package is to make it a sub-package called "nettle-gmp" or > "nettle-bignum". Another alternative is to leave libhogweed.so* in the > nettle package, but I'd like to keep dependencies (gmp) to a minimum. Either way I wouldn't call it a blocker but I did have a crazy idea I'd like your opinion on. What about not even creating a "nettle" binary package? Instead create 5 sub-packages exclusively. libnettle libhogweed nettle-tools libnettle-devel libhogweed-devel I like separating the devel packages so if you install one you don't automatically pull in the other library. I don't see anywhere where this isn't allowed... Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833573] Review Request: nettle - Low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833573 --- Comment #3 from Michael Cronenworth --- (In reply to comment #2) > 2. I know hogweed is a library and on some other distros library packages > are always prefixed with lib, but as we don't have that convention in > Fedora, would it not be better to call the hogweed package just "hogweed" to > be consistent with "nettle"? The nettle documentation refers to it as "libhogweed". An alternative name I could give this package is to make it a sub-package called "nettle-gmp" or "nettle-bignum". Another alternative is to leave libhogweed.so* in the nettle package, but I'd like to keep dependencies (gmp) to a minimum. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 --- Comment #18 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 808258] Review Request: python-sh - Python module to simplify calling shell commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808258 --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean --- Thanks, Michael. :) Andy, let's wait just a little while for a response from amoffat on https://github.com/amoffat/pbs/pull/64 ; I'd really like his feedback. If he's unresponsive, you can probably run that script yourself to setup a fork-in-name-only. We should probably edit the script to denote in the description and README that python-sh is just a rename of the pbs module with links to the relevant upstream issues. It'd be a shame to unnecessarily confuse developers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Alec Leamas --- You shouldn't apologize, I should. It was I who somehow reset your '+' to '?' when setting fedora-cvs flag. I have yet to make a cvs request without making a mistake. Seems utterly hard. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openerp-client Short Description: Business Applications Server Client Owners: leamas 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 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Brendan Jones --- Apologies! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- maven-processor-plugin-2.0.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-processor-plugin-2.0.5-2.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 815098] Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - Maven Processor Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 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 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean --- You might create a ticket for the update to python-pyramid and mark this ticket as blocking on that 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 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- Brendan, please ser fedora-review to +. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818805] Review Request: openerp-client - Business Applications Server Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818805 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Alec Leamas --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openerp-client Short Description: Business Applications Server Client Owners: leamas 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 815098] Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - Maven Processor Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 --- 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 815098] Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - Maven Processor Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-processor-plugin Short Description: Maven Processor Plugin 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 815098] Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - Maven Processor Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann --- After clearing the license with the project owner via email, the license field is corrected to "LGPLv3 and ASL 2.0". *** 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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev-rpm - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #5 from Chris Lockfort --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pyudev Short Description: Python bindings for libudev Owners: clockfort 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 833573] Review Request: nettle - Low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833573 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw --- Ok, quick spec review: 1. Although I find it strange as well, LGPLv2.1 or later should be referenced as just "LGPLv2+" From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) or later LGPLv2+ 2. I know hogweed is a library and on some other distros library packages are always prefixed with lib, but as we don't have that convention in Fedora, would it not be better to call the hogweed package just "hogweed" to be consistent with "nettle"? 3. Missed one arch specific Requires: in the devel subpackage. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829713] grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 --- Comment #10 from vasc...@gmail.com --- It not compile in rawhide. I created bugreport to upstream https://github.com/Grive/grive/issues/72 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-processor-plugin/2/maven-processor-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-processor-plugin/2/maven-processor-plugin-2.0.5-2.fc16.src.rpm - fix license -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834239] Review Request: monobristol - frontend for britsol in mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239 --- Comment #1 from Jørn Lomax --- Updated .spec:http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/monobristol.spec updated SRPM: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/monobristol-0.60.3-3.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint .spec: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint SRPM: monobristol.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bristol -> Bristol, bristle, bristly monobristol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synthesisers -> synthesizers, synthesizer's, synthesizes monobristol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subtractive -> subtracting, subtracted, subtract 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 834098] Review Request: python-m2ext - M2Crypto Extensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834098 --- Comment #4 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 833164] Review Request: python-pyudev-rpm - udev bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833164 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Please include an SCM request. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_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 832504] Review Request: pesign - Utility for signing UEFI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). No need to request f18, devel is automatic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #5 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 736717] Review Request: lcmaps - Grid (X.509) and VOMS credentials to local account mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 --- Comment #6 from Dennis van Dok --- The lcmaps package has been extensively updated upstream; once more I would like to request for a review for inclusion in Fedora. The spec file is http://software.nikhef.nl/dist/redhat/el5/mwsec/SPECS/lcmaps.spec The SRPM is http://software.nikhef.nl/dist/redhat/el5/mwsec/SRPMS/lcmaps-1.5.5-1.el5.src.rpm I've done a self-review and there still are some known issues: - rpmlint gives many warnings about the interface packages, because they aren't recognised as devel packages. There are several features that set the interface packages apart from -devel packages: + there are interface packages for each interface of LCMAPS + they are architecture independent + they do not depend on the base package + they do not even depend on a particular version of the base package - The documentation is somewhat outdated. If these issues are real blockers for adoption, let me know. Otherwise I would really appreciate it if someone would take a look. PS a functional test of the software isn't exactly trivial. It is a core component of a security framework, and without clients and plug-ins it doesn't do a whole lot. But I can't get any of the other stuff in without first having lcmaps 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 829713] grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 --- Comment #9 from vasc...@gmail.com --- Can you show full build log? Because my build was succesfull http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/grive/0.2.0/1.fc17.R/data/logs/i686/build.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825854] Review Request: zita-alsa-pcmi - alsa pcm libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854 --- Comment #22 from Jørn Lomax --- Here is (hopefully) the final update spec: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/zita-alsa-pcmi.spec srpm: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0-6.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint->.spec: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint->SRPM: zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clalsadrv -> cloistral, clustered, clerestory zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise -> initialize, initials, initial's zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hw -> Haw, He, haw zita-alsa-pcmi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap -> map, amp, mam 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 815098] Review Request: maven-processor-plugin - Maven Processor Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann --- Thanks, but we still don't know what's the actual license of this project. Once we hear back from the developer - we can move forward with the review. Until then, I'm holding 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 834239] Review Request: monobristol - frontend for britsol in mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com Blocks||805236 (FedoraAudio) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815098 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |maven-processor-plugin -|maven-processor-plugin - |maven-processor-plugin |Maven Processor Plugin |Maven Mojo | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-processor-plugin/1/maven-processor-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-processor-plugin/1/maven-processor-plugin-2.0.5-2.fc16.src.rpm - fix summary - fix license -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829713] grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge --- Missing reference to no rm -rf in install: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #13 from Lukáš Czerner --- Hi Eric, thank you very much for the review! I have updated description according your comments in Comment 7. Regarding the commands used in the system storage manager: cryptsetup-luks - is not required and if not present crypt backend will not be used. It has been designed this way. device-mapper (dmsetup) - it is required only by crypt backend and again if it is not present, it will not be used. lvm2 - it is not required and if not present lvm backend will not be used. It has been designed this way. btrfs-progs - it is not required and if not present btrfs backend will not be used. It has been designed this way. util-linux - it already is required in the spec file which - This have to be added into the required packages. Thanks for pointing this out. xfsprogs e2fsprogs - Unfortunately I've completely forgot about those and the system storage manager will not gracefully handle the situation when the file system tools are missing. We are already working on a patch, however it might make more sense to just require those two packages since it will probably cover most of the usual setups anyway. I am going to add those packages to required for now. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/lczerner/files/system-storage-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/lczerner/files/system-storage-manager-0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Thanks Eric! -Lukas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829713] grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge ---
rpmdev-newspec is ONE way to create specs.
[!]: 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
(I currently can't find the corresponding policy for that)
Build fails:
[ 94%] Building CXX object libgrive/CMakeFiles/grive.dir/src/bfd/Debug.cc.o
cd /builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48/libgrive && /usr/lib/ccache/c++
-DHAVE_BFD -DVERSION=\"0.2.0\"
-DTEST_DATA=\"/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48/
libgrive/test/data/\" -DSRC_DIR=\"/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e4
8/libgrive/src\" -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48/libgrive/src
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48/libgrive/test-o
CMakeFiles/grive.dir/src/bfd/Debug.cc.o -c
/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48/libgrive/src/bfd/Debug.cc
In file included from
/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48/libgrive/src/bfd/SymbolInfo.cc:25:0:
/usr/include/bfd.h:37:2: error: #error config.h must be included before this
header
make[2]: *** [libgrive/CMakeFiles/grive.dir/src/bfd/SymbolInfo.cc.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/Grive-grive-f4b3e48'
make[1]: *** [libgrive/CMakeFiles/grive.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.NP0BWq (%build)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.NP0BWq (%build)
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
# ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/grive.spec']
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
70, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 352, in do
raise mockbuild.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n #
%s" % (command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
# ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/grive.spec']
LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
