[Bug 823060] Review Request: php-symfony2-Routing - Symfony2 Routing Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823060 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet --- No issue detected. == 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 823060] Review Request: php-symfony2-Routing - Symfony2 Routing Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823060 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet --- Created attachment 593975 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=593975&action=edit php-symfony2-Routing-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823056] Review Request: php-symfony2-Locale - Symfony2 Locale Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823056 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Remi Collet --- No issue detected. === 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 823056] Review Request: php-symfony2-Locale - Symfony2 Locale Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823056 --- Comment #10 from Remi Collet --- Created attachment 593970 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=593970&action=edit php-symfony2-Locale-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ke...@scrye.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 819480] Review Request: limesurvey - a web-based survey application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480 --- Comment #22 from Dan Mashal --- @Kevin, Any elder wisdom you could provide would help here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #21 from Dan Mashal ---
[dan@Fedora17 SPECS]$ rpmlint limesurvey.spec
limesurvey.spec:38: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1}
limesurvey.spec:38: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
limesurvey.spec:57: W: macro-in-comment %config
limesurvey.spec:57: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
limesurvey.spec:58: W: macro-in-comment %config
limesurvey.spec:58: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
limesurvey.spec:59: W: macro-in-comment %attr
limesurvey.spec:59: W: macro-in-comment %{limedir}
limesurvey.spec:60: W: macro-in-comment %attr
limesurvey.spec:60: W: macro-in-comment %{limedir}
limesurvey.spec:61: W: macro-in-comment %attr
limesurvey.spec:61: W: macro-in-comment %{limedir}
limesurvey.spec:62: W: macro-in-comment %attr
limesurvey.spec:62: W: macro-in-comment %{limedir}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
(lines commented out for obvious 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 819480] Review Request: limesurvey - a web-based survey application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480 --- Comment #20 from Dan Mashal --- After further investigation RC4 has been released. This brings me to my first point: 1) If you are going to become the package maintainer for something you MUST KEEP UP WITH UPSTREAM! If you can't then don't package a release candidate or package the latest stable version! 2) Your spec file was a complete mess. I had to clean it up and redo it by hand. Please review the spec file that I have done and try to install the rpm I have built by hand. 3) Again, I do not like the idea of making this an apache specific package. While I understand apache is the official/default webserver of Fedora not everyone runs "httpd". Please keep this in mind and plan for it in your package. 4) I would even go so far as to remove the httpd in the requires field or create a seperate package for nginx and/or lighthttpd or script it in a way so that the configure script checks for the webserver that is installed on the end user's machine. I have built RC4 successfully after revising the spec file and using the latest source, and changing the URL to my fedorapeople URL. links: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/limesurvey.spec http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/limesurvey200RC4-build120622.tar.gz http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/limesurvey-2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/limesurvey-2.0-1.fc17.noarch.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 819480] Review Request: limesurvey - a web-based survey application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |dan.mas...@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 819480] Review Request: limesurvey - a web-based survey application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480 --- Comment #19 from Dan Mashal --- Per our conversation on IRC after running rpmlint you got the following error: limesurvey.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.limesurvey.org/Unstable_releases/limesurvey200RC2-build120528.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Please change "Source0" line to the following URL below and run rpmlint again. Source0: http://download.limesurvey.org/Unstable_releases/limesurvey200RC2-build120528.tar.gz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798977] Review Request: GemRB - a portable Open Source implementation of BioWare's Infinity Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798977 --- Comment #1 from Hubert "Schlussarz" Ślósarski --- (In reply to comment #0) > SRPM URL: http://db.tt/NCjlvKZT SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j9rgjrehanfh522/gemrb-0.7.0-2.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 825333] Review Request: libopkele - A C++ implementation of the OpenID decentralized identity system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825333 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt --- For both Rawhide and F17, the two mentioned headers are not installed, so bottom of comment 2 is true: checking expat.h usability... yes checking expat.h presence... yes checking for expat.h... yes checking for XML_ParserCreate in -lexpat... yes checking tidy.h usability... yes checking tidy.h presence... yes checking for tidy.h... yes checking for tidyParseBuffer in -ltidy... yes checking tidy/tidy.h usability... no checking tidy/tidy.h presence... no checking for tidy/tidy.h... no $ rpm -qpl libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm /usr/include/opkele /usr/include/opkele/acconfig.h /usr/include/opkele/association.h /usr/include/opkele/ax.h /usr/include/opkele/basic_op.h /usr/include/opkele/basic_rp.h /usr/include/opkele/exception.h /usr/include/opkele/extension.h /usr/include/opkele/extension_chain.h /usr/include/opkele/iterator.h /usr/include/opkele/oauth_ext.h /usr/include/opkele/opkele-config.h /usr/include/opkele/prequeue_rp.h /usr/include/opkele/sreg.h /usr/include/opkele/tr1-mem.h /usr/include/opkele/types.h /usr/include/opkele/uris.h /usr/include/opkele/util.h /usr/include/opkele/verify_op.h /usr/lib64/libopkele.so /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libopkele.pc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825333] Review Request: libopkele - A C++ implementation of the OpenID decentralized identity system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825333 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt --- Or did you peek at the source tarball instead of the libopkele-devel 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 825333] Review Request: libopkele - A C++ implementation of the OpenID decentralized identity system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825333
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt ---
$ rpmdev-extract libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/acconfig.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/association.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/ax.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/basic_op.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/basic_rp.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/exception.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/extension.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/extension_chain.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/iterator.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/oauth_ext.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/opkele-config.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/prequeue_rp.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/sreg.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/tr1-mem.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/types.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/uris.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/util.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele/verify_op.h
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/lib64/libopkele.so
libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libopkele.pc
No such header files as you mention. Closer look:
$ cd libopkele-devel-2.0.4-2.fc17.x86_64/usr/include/opkele
$ grep expat * -R
$ grep tidy * -R
exception.h: * htmltidy related error occured
exception.h:class exception_tidy : public exception {
exception.h:exception_tidy(OPKELE_E_PARS);
exception.h:exception_tidy(OPKELE_E_PARS,int r);
exception.h:~exception_tidy() throw() { }
$ grep buffio * -R
$
$ cd libopkele-2.0.4
$ find|grep tidy
./libopkele-2.0.4/include/opkele/tidy.h
$ find|grep expat
./libopkele-2.0.4/lib/expat.cc
./libopkele-2.0.4/include/opkele/expat.h
$
They are conditional. Will be back after a resubmitted build job to get a
chance to check the build log as why these have not been installed in my
test-build on May 30th.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833462] Review Request: hawkey - A Library providing simplified C and Python API to libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833462 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt --- Although the section at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires focuses on explicit library package deps, its bottom is meant to be understood like "In the spec file, you should add comments to all explicit dependencies and explain why there is a manually added dependency on something." For the python-hawkey package, there is an automatic dependency on python(abi) = 2.7 already, so your spec file comment should explain why a manually added dependency on "python" or "python2" would be needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||432228 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt --- Sorry, it's beyond my time and interest to dig into this much. For Debian there are tickets from 2009 such as: libnettle-dev is gone, replaced (and not provided) by nettle-dev http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542133 The current naming can be found here: http://packages.debian.org/source/wheezy/nettle nettle (source) libnettle4 libhogweed2 nettle-dev nettle-bin nettle-dbg The old Fedora review is in bug 432228. It passed the "naming and versioning guidelines" requirements there with nettle src.rpm nettle nettle-devel One could try to find out whether https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming has been considered in 2008 and what package names other dists used around that time. Btw, the old review also mentioned a few of the item's I have pointed out, such as the test-suite. The old package has been included in F12 for the last time, so whatever the new naming will be, I don't think it would be necessary to add Obsoletes/Provides for the ancient stuff in F12. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #25 from Orcan Ogetbil --- (In reply to comment #24) > > Doesn't that mean that it's possible to release it under GPLv3 at our option? Yes, there is no licensing conflict as GPLv2+ software is a superclass of GPLv3+ software by definition. In the case that a software package contains code from multiple (and compatible) licenses, these licenses need to be listed in the License tag. Please see [1] for the relevnt guideline and an example, and [2] for a real-life example. Note that the examples give detailed explanation about the licenses of individual source files. > > There is no bugtracker or mailinglist for upstream as far as i know. I have > contacted upstream about the patches and documentation. > Thanks, please indicate this in the specfile as a comment. See [3] for the relevant guideline. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [2] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=dpkg.git;a=blob;f=dpkg.spec;h=70e29fc42ad [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834802] Review Request: rhythmcat2 - GTK+ frontend of RhythmCat2 Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834802 Mike Manilone 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 834802] New: Review Request: rhythmcat2 - GTK+ frontend of RhythmCat2 Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834802 Bug ID: 834802 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: Review Request: rhythmcat2 - GTK+ frontend of RhythmCat2 Music Player Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: crtm...@gmx.us Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://ekd123.org/RhythmCat2.spec SRPM URL: http://ekd123.org/rhythmcat2-1.9.3-1.src.rpm Description: RhythmCat2 is a music player which can be used under Linux. It is not only a normal music player, it has both command-line interface and graphic user interface, and it can extend its features by plug-ins, like lyric show in window, desktop lyric show, etc... The GTK+ UI can use custom GTK+ 3 themes, and the UI layout can be customed partially. This is my first package and I need a sponsor. 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 825517] Review Request: egtk - The eGTK (elementary GTK) themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and Xfwm4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> But then, when I try to install the packages built from the so-edited Spec
> file, Yum complains about them requiring "egtk = 3.1-3.fc17" and doesn't
> allow me to install.
>
> Isn't "Requires: egtk-common" in all "%package" sections (except "common")
> enough?
No, it is usually not enough. In the current state, Yum could use any version
of an egtk-common package as a dependency. The mentioned line was an example,
directly taken from the guidelines. In our case, you have to change it as
follows:
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
Imagine, the developers decide to stop with the xfce part, then the egtk-xfce
subpackage remains in an older version and could become buggy. The explicite
version number in the "Requires" line avoids this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826563] Review Request: fuelmanager - keep track of your fuel mileage and consumption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826563 --- Comment #11 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 823056] Review Request: php-symfony2-Locale - Symfony2 Locale Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823056 --- Comment #9 from Shawn Iwinski --- Updates per comment #5: - Fix package.xml for *.res files issue - Added %lang directive flags for *.res files - Modified %files because of separate *.res file listings SPEC URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-symfony2-Locale.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-symfony2-Locale-2.0.15-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785488] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-View - Horde View API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785488 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com, ||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski --- I am not an official package reviewer, but here are some comments I have for this package: *** It would help readability to group your Build* and Requires* statements together instead of mixing them with each other and your Provides and Conflicts statements *** Your BuildRequires should be BuildRequires: php-pear(PEAR) >= 1.7.0 instead of BuildRequires: php-pear >= 1:1.4.9-1.2 (this would match what you have in bug 785606 and satisfy this package's package.xml dependency) *** Per package.xml requirements, please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 *** phpci results: For completeness, you may wish to require the virtual packages (and to prevent any future packaging issues due to PHP package changes) "php-date", "php-json", "php-pcre", "php-reflection", and "php-spl". *** Up to you, but package.xml lists the following optional packages if you choose to require: - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Controller) < 2.0.0 - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Routes) < 2.0.0 (if you do choose to require these packages, please update this ticket's "Depends On") *** Please remove "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" from the %install section (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag) -- I'm assuming no EPEL 5 build because your other php-horde-* packages do not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- Also, please remove "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" from the %install section (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag) -- I'm assuming no EPEL 5 build because your other php-horde-* packages do not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com, ||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- I am not an official package reviewer, but here are some comments I have for this package: *** It would help readability to group your Build* and Requires* statements together instead of mixing them with each other and your Provides and Conflicts statements *** Your BuildRequires should be BuildRequires: php-pear(PEAR) >= 1.7.0 instead of BuildRequires: php-pear >= 1:1.4.9-1.2 (this would match what you have in bug 785606 and satisfy this package's package.xml dependency) *** Per package.xml requirements, please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 *** phpci results: For completeness, you may wish to require the virtual packages (and to prevent any future packaging issues due to PHP package changes) "php-date", "php-ftp", and "php-pcre". "php-posix" is also optional, but may provide a better end-user experience if required. *** All locale files should be tagged with "%lang(xx)" *** Up to you, but package.xml lists the following optional packages if you choose to require: - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Auth) < 2.0.0 - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Core) < 2.0.0 - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Db) < 2.0.0 - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Kolab_Session) < 2.0.0 - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Mime) < 2.0.0 - php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Perms) < 2.0.0 - php-pecl(ssh2) >= 0.10 (if you do choose to require these packages, please update this ticket's "Depends On") -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785491] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Injector - Horde dependency injection container
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785491 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com, ||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski --- I am not an official package reviewer, but here are some comments I have for this package: *** It would help readability to group your Build* and Requires* statements together instead of mixing them with each other and your Provides and Conflicts statements *** Your BuildRequires should be BuildRequires: php-pear(PEAR) >= 1.7.0 instead of BuildRequires: php-pear >= 1:1.4.9-1.2 (this would match what you have in bug 785606 and satisfy this package's package.xml dependency) *** Per package.xml requirements, please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 *** phpci results: For completeness (and to prevent any future packaging issues due to PHP package changes), you may wish to require the virtual packages "php-reflection" and "php-spl". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com, ||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- I am not an official package reviewer, but here are some comments I have for this package: *** Your BuildRequires should be BuildRequires: php-pear(PEAR) >= 1.7.0 instead of BuildRequires: php-pear >= 1:1.4.9-1.2 (this would match what you have in bug 785606 and satisfy this package's package.xml dependency) *** Per package.xml requirements, please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 *** phpci results: For completeness, you may wish to require the package "php-mbstring" and the virtual package (to prevent any future packaging issues due to PHP package changes) "php-zlib". While package.xml lists these as optional, I believe this package would provide a better end-user experience if you added the two 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 785493] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Cli - Horde Command Line Interface API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785493 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com, ||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski --- I am not an official package reviewer, but here are some comments I have for this package: *** Per package.xml requirements, please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 *** phpci results: For completeness (and to prevent any future packaging issues due to PHP package changes), you may wish to require the virtual packages "php-pcre" and "php-session". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #4 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #3) Also, please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #3) > Ready for official review. I take that back. Please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #3) > Ready for official review. I take that back. Please add: Requires: php-common >= 5.2.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #2) Almost ready for official review. Please change Requires:php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Stream_Filter) to Requires:php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Stream_Filter) < 2.0.0 per package.xml requirements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #2) Ready for official 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 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 #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #2) Ready for official 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 785606] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Test - Horde testing base classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785606 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #2) Almost ready for official review. Please change Requires:php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Cli) Requires:php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Log) to Requires:php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Cli) < 2.0.0 Requires:php-pear(pear.horde.org/Horde_Log) < 2.0.0 per package.xml requirements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825825] Review Request: struts - Web application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825825 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i | |t) | --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/struts/1/struts.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/struts/1/struts-1.3.10-2.fc16.src.rpm - removed non-free resources -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834747] Review Request: gps - IDE for C and Ada
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747 --- Comment #1 from Julian Leyh --- Sorry, forgot to re-upload the files after realizing that I had forgotten a dependency.. Please download again if you downloaded it before this message was sent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820344] Review Request: apache-commons-javaflow - Commons Javaflow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflow.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-0.1.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 825825] Review Request: struts - Web application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825825 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i ||t) --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Some files that are included in the source RPM are non-free, not even redistributable, for example src/core/src/main/resources/org/apache/struts/resources/web-app_2_3.dtd Quoting from the file: > Copyright 2000-2001 Sun Microsystems, Inc. 901 San Antonio Road, > Palo Alto, CA 94303, U.S.A. All rights reserved. > > > This product or document is protected by copyright and distributed > under licenses restricting its use, copying, distribution, and > decompilation. No part of this product or documentation may be > reproduced in any form by any means without prior written authorization > of Sun and its licensors, if any. This means that files like that cannot even be included in the SRPM. Non-free files need to be excluded from the distrubution. Please get in touch with upstream and report this matter. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820344] Review Request: apache-commons-javaflow - Commons Javaflow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: %config %{_sysconfdir}/ant.d/%{short_name}
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-javadoc-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
apache-commons-javaflow.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT-src-svn.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-ant-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
apache-commons-javaflow-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/ant.d/commons-javaflow
apache-commons-javaflow-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Package has no sources or they are generated by developer
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working
[Bug 833511] Review Request: dnf - A Yum fork on top of libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833511
--- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten ---
Would it be possible to run tests in a %check section?
What is the state of the tool?
I have done some initial testing on a F17 system and found some bugs.
a)
# dnf --enablerepo=\*testing\* update
[snip]
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf/conf.py", line 69, in _retdir
return os.path.join(dir, self.suffix)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/posixpath.py", line 66, in join
if b.startswith('/'):
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'startswith'
b)
# Does the --exclude options work?
c)
Enabling updates-testing I get a strange message:
# dnf update
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Starting dependency resolution
--> Finished dependency resolution
Error: package nfs-utils-1:1.2.6-2.fc17.x86_64 requires kmod, but none of the
providers can be installed
# dnf list kmod
Installed Packages
kmod.x86_647-2.fc17 @System
Why ask about kmod, it's installed?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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: fuelmanager - keep track of your fuel mileage and consumption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826563 --- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to comment #5) > 2. added hicolor-icon-theme to build requirements Your package requires 'hicolor-icon-theme' because of the directory ownership. 'hicolor-icon-theme' is not a BR -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834747] Review Request: gps - IDE for C and Ada
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747 Julian Leyh 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 834747] New: Review Request: gps - IDE for C and Ada
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747 Bug ID: 834747 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: gps - IDE for C and Ada Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jul...@vgai.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vgai.de/fedora/gps.spec SRPM URL: http://vgai.de/fedora/gps-5.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: GNAT Programming Studio is a complete integrated development environment that gives access to a wide range of tools and integrates them smoothly. Fedora Account System Username: oenone This is my first package, I need a sponsor. I already did packaging for Arch Linux, see https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=oenone Koji-Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4189269 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
