[Bug 830750] Review Request: jbosgi-resolver1 - Standalone OSGi Resolver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830750

--- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann  ---
Thanks for review!

I added the comment above patch, but I haven't changed the patch names. There
are a few reasons for it:

1. These names are generated by default by git.
2. Names like I have make it easy to understand the proper order when looking
at directory.
3. Adding package name to the file name makes it reduntant, since all files are
in a 'jbosgi-resolver1' repository.

Hope this makes sense!

Spec URL:
http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-resolver1/1.0.13-3/jbosgi-resolver1.spec
SRPM URL:
http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-resolver1/1.0.13-3/jbosgi-resolver1-1.0.13-3.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 830421] Review Request: python-django-pylibmc - Django cache backend using pylibmc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830421

--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge  ---
OK, thank you Michael, for the reminder.


[mrunge@mrungexp review]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/python-django-pylibmc-0.2.3-1.20120609git28874f.fc18.noarch.rpm
 
django-pylibmc = 0.2.3-1.20120609git28874f.fc18
python-django-pylibmc = 0.2.3-1.20120609git28874f.fc18



[mrunge@mrungexp review]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/python-django-pylibmc-0.2.3-1.20120609git28874f.fc18.noarch.rpm
 
python(abi) = 2.7
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

no python-django? I have missed that in my review.

obsoletes: obsoletes the latest version before the rename. (OK)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 829116] Review Request: ninja-build - A small build system with a focus on speed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116

Ville Skyttä  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|0x  |Package 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 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224

Ville Skyttä  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mgans...@alice.de |
   |)   |

--- Comment #16 from Ville Skyttä  ---
I'm assuming Martin did those changes by accident, I (being his sponsor) just
tried to undo the mess. There's no way I could have affected who is the
requestor of the fedora-review flag so it got set to me. So I think you're
still very welcome to do this review.

BTW, 0x is not a catch-all component, it's real software.
http://www.nopcode.org/0x/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(mgans...@alice.de
   ||)

--- Comment #15 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
Er, Martin, what's going on here? I see the reviewer flag reset and then
switched to Ville Skytta (though according to Bugzilla's email, you did this,
not Ville -- didn't even know that's possible), and for a while the component
was changed from Package Review to 0x, that catch-all component for
miscategorized bugs.

Let me know if you want me to do this review - seems like the flag change was
inadvertent, but I'd of course let Ville do the review if that's your
intention.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830750] Review Request: jbosgi-resolver1 - Standalone OSGi Resolver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830750

Satya Komaragiri  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED

--- Comment #4 from Satya Komaragiri  ---
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.
[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.
[-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint jbosgi-resolver1-1.0.13-2.fc18.src.rpm

jbosgi-resolver1.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jbosgi-resolver1.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jbosgi-resolver-1.0.13.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint jbosgi-resolver1-javadoc-1.0.13-2.fc18.noarch.rpm

jbosgi-resolver1-javadoc.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint jbosgi-resolver1-1.0.13-2.fc18.noarch.rpm

jbosgi-resolver1.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jbosgi-resolver1.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

These warnings can be ignored.

[-]: 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.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
 separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
 include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
 /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
 --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
The reason for this has been explained in the review request. Ignoring.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
 upstream.
[!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[!]: SHOULD S

[Bug 835338] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jst-web - Eclipse tools for working with JavaServer Pages (JSP)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835338

Gerard Ryan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||833154

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 833154] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jeetools - Frameworks and tools for Eclipse, focused on the development of J2EE artifacts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833154

Gerard Ryan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||835338

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835338] New: Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jst-web - Eclipse tools for working with JavaServer Pages (JSP)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835338

Bug ID: 835338
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: eclipse-wtp-jst-web - Eclipse tools
for working with JavaServer Pages (JSP)
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: ger...@ryan.lt
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL:
http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-jst-web/3.4.0/0.1.RC4/eclipse-wtp-jst-web.spec
SRPM URL:
http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-jst-web/3.4.0/0.1.RC4/eclipse-wtp-jst-web-3.4.0-0.1.RC4.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Eclipse tools for working with JavaServer Pages (JSP).
Fedora Account System Username: galileo

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 821184] Review Request: fatback - A tool for recovering files from FAT file systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821184

Michal Ambroz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|re...@seznam.cz

--- Comment #6 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Hello,
I can take a review of this package.
Fabian please have you got any response from the upstream on the licensing
questions?

Thank you
Michal Ambroz

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239

Orcan Ogetbil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Orcan Ogetbil  ---
I got some notes to get things going.

* Package fails to build [1] with errors:
   RPM build errors:
  Macro %__isa_name has empty body
  Macro %__isa_bits has empty body
  File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/monobristol-0.60.3-3.fc18.noarch/usr/share/monobristol/monoBristol.exe

* Mono packages are not supposed to be noarch. Please follow the Mono packaging
guidelines [2]. Note that you will need to suppress the empty debuginfo failure
as explained in the guidelines.

* In the buid log, the .desktop file installation gives the warning. 

   monoBristol.desktop: error: (will be fatal in the future): value
"monobristol.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon name with
an extension, but there should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme
Specification if the value is not an absolute path

Please fix this. This fix is upstreamable.


[1]   http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4195234
[2]   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 783657] Review Request: fiwalk - Batch analysis of a disk image

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783657

Michal Ambroz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|re...@seznam.cz

--- Comment #3 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Hello, 
I will take review of this package.
Michal Ambroz

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 825599] Review Request: samdump2 - Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows SAM hive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599

Michal Ambroz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #2 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Thank you Fabian for the review.

---

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name:  samdump2
Short Description: Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows
2k/NT/XP/Vista SAM
Owners:rebus
Branches:  f17 f16 el5 el6
InitialCC:


Thank you.
Michal Ambroz

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 825450] Review Request: snmpcheck - An utility to get information via SNMP protocols

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825450

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
snmpcheck-1.8-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snmpcheck-1.8-4.el5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 825450] Review Request: snmpcheck - An utility to get information via SNMP protocols

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825450

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
snmpcheck-1.8-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snmpcheck-1.8-4.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 825450] Review Request: snmpcheck - An utility to get information via SNMP protocols

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825450

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
snmpcheck-1.8-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snmpcheck-1.8-4.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 817984] Review Request: ghc-zlib-conduit - Conduits for (de)compression

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817984

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:53:53

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-wai-1.2.0.2-1.fc17, ghc-warp-1.2.1.1-1.fc17, ghc-wai-extra-1.2.0.4-1.fc17,
ghc-snap-core-0.8.1-1.fc17, ghc-zlib-conduit-0.4.0.1-1.fc17,
ghc-zlib-enum-0.2.2.1-1.fc17, ghc-simple-sendfile-0.2.3-1.fc17,
ghc-zlib-bindings-0.1.0.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 809533] Review Request: tuscany-parent - Apache Tuscany Project Parent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809533

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:51:24

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
tuscany-parent-2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 818318] Review Request: php-digitalsandwich-Phake - Phake is a PHP mocking framework that is based on Mockito

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818318

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:49:55

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-digitalsandwich-Phake-1.0.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 826563] Review Request: fuelmanager - keep track of your fuel mileage and consumption

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826563

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
fuelmanager-0.3.7-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 822182] Review Request: python-websockify - Python proxy for the websockets protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822182

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-websockify-0.1.0-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 825747] Review Request: mvel - MVFLEX Expression Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825747

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:45:54

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
mvel-2.0.19-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830571] Review Request: perl-Devel-BeginLift - Make selected sub calls evaluate at compile time

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830571

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Devel-BeginLift-0.001003-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 829860] Review Request: perl-MARC-Charset - Converts MARC-8 encoded data to UTF8

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829860

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:43:30

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-MARC-Charset-1.33-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 825854] Review Request: zita-alsa-pcmi - alsa pcm libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854

--- Comment #28 from Orcan Ogetbil  ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> 
> I'm guessing the above is from inlcuding alsa-devel as a requirement for the
> devel pacakge?
> 

I don't think it is for that reason. Those are standard libraries and their
linkage is automatic, e.g. you don't need to specify a -lstdc++ during linking.
Possibly a bug with the linker? Anyhow this is a problem with the package.

We are almost there. The License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ tag shall be for the utils
subpackage. Since no GPLv2+ code goes to rest, the other packages are pure
GPLv3+.

I will take a look at your other packages and informal reviews next. Do you use
the same email address at FAS?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 828278] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-rabbit - Ruby DSL for creating restful applications using Sinatra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828278

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-sinatra-rabbit-1.0.6-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830575] Review Request: perl-Devel-Pragma - Helper functions for developers of lexical pragmas

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830575

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Devel-Pragma-0.54-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830575] Review Request: perl-Devel-Pragma - Helper functions for developers of lexical pragmas

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830575

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:39:41

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Devel-Pragma-0.54-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830571] Review Request: perl-Devel-BeginLift - Make selected sub calls evaluate at compile time

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830571

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:37:20

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Devel-BeginLift-0.001003-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823811] Review Request: createrepo_c - C implementation of the createrepo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823811

--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
createrepo_c-0.1.5-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823811] Review Request: createrepo_c - C implementation of the createrepo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823811

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:35:55

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
createrepo_c-0.1.5-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 822187] Review Request: novnc - websockets based VNC client and simple server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822187

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
novnc-0.3-10.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 820343] Review Request: junit-addons - JUnitX helper classes for JUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820343

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:32:21

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
junit-addons-1.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 820341] Review Request: apache-commons-jci - Commons Java Compiler Interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820341

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:31:36

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
apache-commons-jci-1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 828278] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-rabbit - Ruby DSL for creating restful applications using Sinatra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828278

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-06-25 20:30:24

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-sinatra-rabbit-1.0.6-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

--- Comment #6 from Simon A. Erat  ---
Some additions:
* All of the code is self written.
* The Script-Tools can run from everywhere, however, by default its sym-linking
to /usr/share/script-tools. That is so it can be executed from an usb-stick,
usb-harddisk, CD/DvD. For that reason it stores the user data in
$HOME/bin/$USER-libs/*. What is on the list todo, but with low priority, to use
your own listfiles for the setup of your system from minimal to GUI.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

Simon A. Erat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #594263|Spec-File, requires bash,   |Spec-File
description|conflict with newer|equal   |
   |version |

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

Simon A. Erat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #594263|Spec-File, requires bash,   |Spec-File, requires bash,
description|conflict with older version |conflict with newer|equal
   ||version

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 825593] Review Request: bkhive - Dump the syskey bootkey from a Windows system hive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825593

--- Comment #2 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Hello Fabian, 
thank you for taking the review.

1) [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Thanks for spotting ... fixed to GPLv2+

2) [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
I do plan to support EPEL as well

3) [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint contains only warnings because the terminology is not known to the
dictionay - bootkey, syskey, decrypt - all should be where they are

4) [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Fixed - thank you

Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/bkhive.spec
SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/bkhive-1.1.1-2.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992

--- Comment #21 from Tomas Mraz  ---
Paul, you're sponsored 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 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992

Cole Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tm...@redhat.com

--- Comment #20 from Cole Robinson  ---
When the package is imported, please list me as a co-maintainer, and the
virtmaint as watchbugzilla + watchcommits.

Also, Tomas Mraz agreed offline to sponsor Paul.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992

Cole Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #19 from Cole Robinson  ---
Firstly, I agree with recommendations up thread to convert to autotools, the
'known quantity' aspect is hugely beneficial if other packagers ever need to
step in a make build or specfile tweaks. But not a blocker here.

fedora-review reported issues:

Issues:
[!]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
 Note: Only applicable for EL-5

Not relevant since this requires a sufficiently new kernel that RHEL5 will
never have.

See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#EL5
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint libseccomp-0.1.0-0.fc18.src.rpm

libseccomp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) seccomp -> sec comp, sec-comp,
compose
libseccomp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syscall -> scallop
libseccomp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US seccomp -> sec comp,
sec-comp, compose
libseccomp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syscalls -> miscalls

Not relevant (these errors were also repeated for each sub package, output
snipped).

libseccomp.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://libseccomp.sourceforge.net HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Certainly works for me, so not sure what rpmlint is hitting here.

Manual inspection of the spec and upstream sources didn't spot any other
problems. Looks good to 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 825825] Review Request: struts - Web application framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825825

--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
The latest upstream release is 2.3.4, but the packaged version is 1.3.10.
Please explain why struts 1.x was packaged instead of 2.x.

springframework and velocity-tools requires the struts 1.x series.

for struts 2. there are unavailable build deps such as:
org.springframework spring-aspects 3.0.5.RELEASE (depend on aspectjtools)



Please explain in a comment why local Maven depmap is needed.

depmap forcing the use of tomcat 7.x apis

Point 4 (d) of Apache License Version 2.0 requires shipping all NOTICE
files along with all derrivate works. Struts includes several such
NOTICE files, but only one of them is being installed. Please install
all NOTICE files applicable to the package.

all NOTICE files contain the same content as the one already 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 830992] Review Request: libseccomp - Enhanced seccomp library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830992

Cole Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||crobi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|crobi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #18 from Cole Robinson  ---
I'll take the case!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835275] New: Review Request: shflags - Simple handling of command-line flags in Bourne based Unix scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835275

Bug ID: 835275
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: shflags - Simple handling of
command-line flags in Bourne based Unix scripts
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/shflags.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/shflags-1.0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description:
Shell Flags (shFlags) is a library written to greatly simplify the handling of
command-line flags in Bourne based Unix shell scripts (bash, dash, ksh, sh,
zsh)
on many Unix OSes (Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, etc.).

Most shell scripts use getopt for flags processing, but the different versions
of getopt on various OSes make writing portable shell scripts difficult.
shFlags
instead provides an API that doesn't change across shell and OS versions so the
script writer can be confident that the script will work.

shFlags is a port of the google-gflags C++/Python library.

Fedora Account System Username: ralph



rpmlint
---

--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS}/shflags*
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ksh -> ks, sh, ssh
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getopt -> get opt,
get-opt, treetop
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google, goggle,
googly
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gflags -> flags, gulags, g
flags
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/*.rpm
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ksh -> ks, sh, ssh
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getopt -> get opt,
get-opt, treetop
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google,
goggle, googly
shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gflags -> flags,
gulags, g flags
shflags.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/shflags-1.0.3/doc/LICENSE.shunit2
shflags.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/shflags-1.0.3/doc/LGPL-2.1
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ksh -> ks, sh, ssh
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getopt -> get opt,
get-opt, treetop
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google, goggle,
googly
shflags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gflags -> flags, gulags, g
flags
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.



I'll file an issue upstream to update the FSF license shortly.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370

--- Comment #4 from Wesley Hearn  ---
Only problem:
[E] - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.

---

[O] - MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review. 
[O] - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[O] - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.  . 
[-] - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[O] - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[O] - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. 
[E] - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[O] - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. 
[O] - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
[O] - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[O] - MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. 
[-] - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. 
[O] - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[O] - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[O] - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
[O] - MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[O] - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. 
[O] - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. 
[O] - MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[O] - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. 
[O] - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 
[O] - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
[O] - MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 
[O] - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. 
[O] - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
[O] - MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. 
[O] - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[O] - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[O] - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. 
[O] - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership wit

[Bug 830421] Review Request: python-django-pylibmc - Django cache backend using pylibmc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830421

--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Please notice the MUST items at
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process
which affect both the packager and the reviewer.

[...]

$ yum search django-avatar django-pylibmc
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
== N/S Matched: django-avatar
==
django-avatar.noarch : A django module for handling user avatars

= N/S Matched: django-pylibmc
==
django-pylibmc.noarch : Django cache backend using pylibmc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

--- Comment #5 from Simon A. Erat  ---
Changed specfile:
Requires:bash
Conflicts:%{name} >= %{version}-%{release}

Upstream:http://sea.hostingsociety.com/dev

Written a small part about the dev section in README.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

Simon A. Erat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #594205|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #4 from Simon A. Erat  ---
Created attachment 594264
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=594264&action=edit
F17-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 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

Simon A. Erat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #594204|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #3 from Simon A. Erat  ---
Created attachment 594263
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=594263&action=edit
Spec-File, requires bash, conflict with older version

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806516] Review Request: python-django-annoying - Eliminate annoying things in the Django framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806516

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||736776

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 806299] Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2012-06-25 15:05:51

--- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge  ---
since its imported and built, I'll close this review request.
Praveen, please follow the remaining steps of the package rename process for
django-registration.
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 825593] Review Request: bkhive - Dump the syskey bootkey from a Windows system hive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825593

--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



 C/C++ 
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.


 Generic 
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
 least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint bkhive-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc18.i686.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint bkhive-1.1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

bkhive.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syskey -> passkey
bkhive.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootkey -> boot key, boot-key,
bootee
bkhive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syskey -> passkey
bkhive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootkey -> boot key,
boot-key, bootee
bkhive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt,
decry-pt, decry
bkhive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Syskey -> Passkey
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.


rpmlint bkhive-1.1.1-1.fc18.i686.rpm

bkhive.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) syskey -> passkey
bkhive.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootkey -> boot key, boot-key,
bootee
bkhive.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syskey -> passkey
bkhive.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootkey -> boot key,
boot-key, bootee
bkhive.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt,
decry-pt, decry
bkhive.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Syskey -> Passkey
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
/home/fab/reviews/825593/bkhive-1.1.1.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package : bb5e076f3051c60331a7831b6c11719d
  MD5SUM upstream package : bb5e076f3051c60331a7831b6c11719d

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does no

[Bug 825496] Review Request: python-django-staticfiles - A Django app that provides helpers for serving static files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825496

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge  ---
I'm sorry, this took so long, but finally:

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.
[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
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint python-django-staticfiles-0.3.2-6.fc18.noarch.rpm

python-django-staticfiles.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish
python-django-staticfiles.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
jezdez -> jeez
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint python-django-staticfiles-0.3.2-6.fc18.src.rpm

python-django-staticfiles.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github
-> git hub, git-hub, thuggish
python-django-staticfiles.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jezdez
-> jeez
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/review/825496/django-staticfiles-0.3.2.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package : 8fd8d7abb3fd06c31d752283ed643fde
  MD5SUM upstream package : 8fd8d7abb3fd06c31d752283ed643fde

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
 upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supp

[Bug 830418] Review Request: python-django-avatar - A reusable django application for handling user avatars

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830418

--- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge  ---
%files -f django.lang
%doc CHANGELOG CONTRIBUTORS.txt README.txt LICENSE.txt
%{python_sitelib}/avatar/
%{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info/


The last two dirs are not included in the built rpm. Hint: Leave out the
trailing slash.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 832178] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - Implementation of a pickled object field

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832178

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2012-06-25 14:46:55

--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge  ---
imported and built. 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 830421] Review Request: python-django-pylibmc - Django cache backend using pylibmc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830421

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Blocks||736776
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge  ---
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.
[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 does not require 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
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: 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 python-django-pylibmc-0.2.3-1.20120609git28874f.fc18.src.rpm

python-django-pylibmc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend -> backed,
back end, back-end
python-django-pylibmc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcached ->
schemed
python-django-pylibmc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend ->
backed, back end, back-end
python-django-pylibmc.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
python-django-pylibmc-0.2.3.20120609git28874f.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.


rpmlint python-django-pylibmc-0.2.3-1.20120609git28874f.fc18.noarch.rpm

python-django-pylibmc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend ->
backed, back end, back-end
python-django-pylibmc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcached
-> schemed
python-django-pylibmc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend
-> backed, back end, back-end
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


[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.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
 separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
 include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
 /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
 --requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions a

[Bug 823075] Review Request: php-symfony2-Security - Symfony2 Security Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823075

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823075] Review Request: php-symfony2-Security - Symfony2 Security Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823075

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com

--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 594258
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=594258&action=edit
php-symfony2-Security-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 823075] Review Request: php-symfony2-Security - Symfony2 Security Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823075

--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet  ---
Please check file placement of *sql (mark as doc).
This files seems not used.

You probably need php-doctrine-DoctrineCommon and php-doctrine-DoctrineDBAL
(not yet packaged).

So please
1/ assure this is an optionnal dep
2/ consider submitting a review for this 2packages.

In Security-2.0.15/Symfony/Component/Security/Acl/Dbal/AclProvider.php
foreach ($stmt->fetchAll(\PDO::FETCH_NUM) as $data) {

So also need php-pdo

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823066] Review Request: php-symfony2-Validator - Symfony2 Validator Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823066

--- Comment #10 from Remi Collet  ---
Sorry, but I have miss that one

/usr/share/pear/Symfony/Component/Validator/ValidatorFactory.php and
/usr/share/pear/Symfony/Component/Validator/Mapping/Loader/AnnotationLoader.php
use Doctrine\Common\Annotations\Reader

So you probably need php-doctrine-DoctrineCommon (not yet packaged).

So please
1/ assure this is an optionnal dep
2/ consider submitting a review for this 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 823060] Review Request: php-symfony2-Routing - Symfony2 Routing Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823060

--- Comment #10 from Remi Collet  ---
Sorry, but I have miss that one

/usr/share/pear/Symfony/Component/Routing/Loader/AnnotationClassLoader.php
use Doctrine\Common\Annotations\Reader

So you probably need php-doctrine-DoctrineCommon (not yet packaged).

So please
1/ assure this is an optionnal dep
2/ consider submitting a review for this 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 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224

Ville Skyttä  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224

Ville Skyttä  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC|dw...@infradead.org |
  Component|0x  |Package Review
   Assignee|dw...@infradead.org |nob...@fedoraproject.org

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 834681] Review Request: python-sieve - XML Comparison Utils

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834681

Bug 834681 depends on bug 834732, which changed state.

Bug 834732 Summary: python-six in EPEL 6?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834732

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177

--- Comment #23 from Paul Wouters  ---
looks like the knot.conf shipped is failing to load?

Jun 25 13:58:09 bofh dbus[975]: [system] Successfully activated service
'org.freedesktop.PackageKit'
Jun 25 13:58:09 bofh dbus-daemon[975]: dbus[975]: [system] Successfully
activated service 'org.freedesktop.PackageKit'
Jun 25 13:58:22 bofh knotd[29107]: 2012-06-25T13:58:22.032542-1193042:16 Using
'/etc/knot/knot.conf' as default configuration.
Jun 25 13:58:22 bofh knotd[29107]: 2012-06-25T13:58:22.032824-1193042:16
Reading configuration '/etc/knot/knot.conf' ...
Jun 25 13:58:22 bofh knot[29107]: [error] Config '/etc/knot/knot.conf' - syntax
error on line 3 (current token 'pifdile').
Jun 25 13:58:22 bofh knotd[29107]: 2012-06-25T13:58:22.032931-1193042:16
[error] Config '/etc/knot/knot.conf' - syntax error on line 3 (current token
'pifdile').

Note that it says "pifdile" instead of "pidfile".

also: No manual entry for knot.conf

I'm also getting this on restart:

Jun 25 14:15:08 bofh knot[29626]: [warning] Failed to remove PID file.

Probably the pid file was made by root? but the daemon has no way overwriting
it? you could use a /var/run/knot/knotd.pid that is group knot and group
writable?

It also seems that the zones are not compiled on start? I added a zone but had
to run "knotc compile" manully? Even when dong a "restart"

Finally, it seems knot loads the zone, but is not answering me:

2012-06-25T14:18:26.814578-1193042:16 Using '/etc/knot/knot.conf' as default
configuration.
2012-06-25T14:18:26.815083-1193042:16 Zone 'nohats.ca.' is up-to-date.

and lsof shows its is running on the proper IP and port, but no queries are
ever answerd, and running knotd -v in the foreground shows nothing, and I see
no errors in syslog.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370

--- Comment #3 from Anderson Silva  ---
life would be so much easier if rpmlint would actually show me these errors... 

for whatever reason it did not throw an error on the description... should be
fixed now:

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-comment_bonus_api.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-3.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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825825

--- Comment #6 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.
[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.
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint struts-javadoc-1.3.10-2.fc18.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint struts-1.3.10-2.fc18.src.rpm

struts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlet -> settler
struts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: struts-1.3.10-clean-src.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint struts-1.3.10-2.fc18.noarch.rpm

struts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlet -> settler
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


These warnings 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.
[!]: 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 URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps 

[Bug 810676] Review Request: aws - Ada Web Server (Web framework for Ada)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676

--- Comment #13 from Julian Leyh  ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Do you know if it has any release tags that can tell us which version we
> should package? Packaging random development snapshots might not be the best
> idea.

I just checked, what tags it has:

before_acte_copyright
first-release
gap-1.1.0
gnat-5.03a
gps-3.0.0
gps-3.0.1
gps-3.1.0
gps-3.1.1
gps-3.1.2
gps-3.1.3
gps-4.0.0
release-0.10.0
release-0.9.0
release-0.9.10
release-0.9.11
release-0.9.2
release-0.9.9
release-1.0.0
release-1.1.0
release-1.2.0
release-1.3.0
release-10.0.0
release-2.0.0
release-2.1a
release-3.0.0
release-4.0.0
release-5.0.0
release-6.0.0
release-7.0.0
release-8.0.0
release-8.1.0
release-8.3.0
release-9.0.0
v11.6.0

current release is 11.6.0, so the tag "v11.6.0" should be the one to use.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069

--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
I have made koji builds on f16 and rawhide to verify that it builds correctly
on each of them.

f16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4182605
rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4190058

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835170] Review Request: cgdcbxd - dcb network priority manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835170

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||695919

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835170] New: Review Request: cgdcbxd - dcb network priority manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835170

Bug ID: 835170
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: cgdcbxd - dcb network priority manager
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: nhor...@redhat.com
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/cgdcbxd.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/cgdcbxd-1.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: cgdcbxd is a daemon that that manages net_prio cgroup process
assignments based on information exchanged over the dcbx protocol in dcb
enabled network environments
Fedora Account System Username: nhorman

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069

--- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Created attachment 594249
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=594249&action=edit
test.icl

This is an example Clean Program which calculates ((1+2)*3)^4 by using Peano
arithmatic.
This can be used to verify that the Clean compiler works accurately.

You can put this in a directory, and execute the command "clm test" to generate
the program (a.out).

Afterwards, you can run it by using ./a.out, and verify that the outcome is
indeed 6561.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825517

--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann  ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> And what about the error caused by the incorrect FSF address?
> Can you confirm there's no need to correct it and all I have to do is
> notifying upstream about?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690919#c5

This is what "spot" said. I'm unsure whether we should touch license
declarations in general. If upstream isn't dead yet, you shouldn't change
anything, and wait until the address has been corrected in future releases.
Keep in mind, we don't speak about the license itself, but about an address
where users can get a printed copy of the license text from, if in doubt. But
who would do this really...?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 786249] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249

--- Comment #9 from Russell Harrison  ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Hi guys, I'd like to take this for a review, are you both ok with it? Could
> you please tell me, where the current versions of your SPEC and SRPM are?
> Thanks.

I've finally gotten a chance to redo my packaging of puppet-lint from scratch
using the new ruby packaging guidelines.  

Spec URL:
http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-puppet-lint-0.1.13-1.fc17.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rharrison.fedorapeople.org/package_review/rubygem-puppet-lint-0.1.13-1.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823073] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpKernel - Symfony2 HttpKernel Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823073

Shawn Iwinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #8 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: php-symfony2-HttpKernel
Short Description: Symfony2 HttpKernel Component
Owners: siwinski
Branches: f16 f17 el6
InitialCC:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823073] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpKernel - Symfony2 HttpKernel Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823073

--- Comment #7 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Optionnal dependencies detected.
> HttpKernel-2.0.15/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Profiler/MysqlProfilerStorage.
> php => pdo_mysql
> HttpKernel-2.0.15/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Profiler/PdoProfilerStorage.
> php => pdo
> HttpKernel-2.0.15/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Profiler/
> SqliteProfilerStorage.php => sqlite3
> 
> Probably php-pdo and php-sqlite3 (same package) could be added (no
> additionnal libraries required, as libsqlite always installed, for rpm)

I'll add "php-pdo" and "php-sqlite3" requires after the approved package
import.

> php-pdo_mysql should be considered

Looking through the requires for php-pdo_mysql (virtual package of php-mysql),
it simply has a require of "php-pdo".  Since "php-pdo" is already going to be
required, I'll go ahead and require "php-pdo_mysql" as well so all optional
dependencies will be accounted for.

As always, thank Remi!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835049] Add "mkrdns" to Fedora packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835049

Bill Nottingham  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nott...@redhat.com,
   ||package-review@lists.fedora
   ||project.org
  Component|distribution|Package Review
   Assignee|nott...@redhat.com  |nob...@fedoraproject.org
 QA Contact|nott...@redhat.com  |extras...@fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #2 from Bill Nottingham  ---
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join#OS_Developer for information on getting
packages into Fedora and maintaining them. I'm moving this to "Package 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370

--- Comment #2 from Wesley Hearn  ---
drupal6-comment_bonus_api.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This module
enhances the standard Drupal comment module's API by providing hooks in

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370

Wesley Hearn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||whe...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|whe...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 CC||dw...@infradead.org
  Component|Package Review  |0x
   Assignee|michel+...@sylvestre.me |dw...@infradead.org
  Flags|fedora-review?  |

--- Comment #14 from MartinKG  ---
%changelog
* Sun Jun 24 2012 Martin Gansser  - 2.1-8
- removed group and user apache from tntnet.conf
- added own group tntnet to tntnet.conf
- added creation of users and groups in pre section

SRPM URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-8.fc17/tntnet-2.1-8.fc17.src.rpm?a=mrLedpPhCkY

Spec URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-8.fc17/tntnet.spec?a=l2tVN0d4nz0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785491

Nick Bebout  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|

--- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout  ---
I believe I have fixed these issues:

Spec URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Injector.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Injector-1.0.1-2.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 823073] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpKernel - Symfony2 HttpKernel Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823073

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Remi Collet  ---
No blocker

=== 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 823073] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpKernel - Symfony2 HttpKernel Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823073

--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet  ---
Optionnal dependencies detected.
HttpKernel-2.0.15/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Profiler/MysqlProfilerStorage.php
=> pdo_mysql
HttpKernel-2.0.15/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Profiler/PdoProfilerStorage.php
=> pdo
HttpKernel-2.0.15/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Profiler/SqliteProfilerStorage.php
=> sqlite3

Probably php-pdo and php-sqlite3 (same package) could be added (no additionnal
libraries required, as libsqlite always installed, for rpm)

php-pdo_mysql should be considered

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823073] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpKernel - Symfony2 HttpKernel Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823073

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com

--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 594231
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=594231&action=edit
php-symfony2-HttpKernel-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 785492] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Controller - Horde Controller libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785492

Nick Bebout  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|

--- Comment #3 from Nick Bebout  ---
I believe I have fixed these issues

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-1.0.2-2.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 785493] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Cli - Horde Command Line Interface API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785493

Nick Bebout  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|

--- Comment #2 from Nick Bebout  ---
I believe I have fixed these issues:

Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Cli.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Cli-1.0.4-2.fc16.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 785606] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Test - Horde testing base classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785606

Nick Bebout  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|

--- Comment #4 from Nick Bebout  ---
I believe I have fixed these issues.

Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Test.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Test-1.3.0-3.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 785496] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-History - API for tracking the history of an object

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785496

Nick Bebout  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|

--- Comment #5 from Nick Bebout  ---
I believe I have fixed all of these issues:

Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-History.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-History-1.0.1-2.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 785494] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Compress - Horde Compression API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785494

Nick Bebout  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 785494] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Compress - Horde Compression API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785494

--- Comment #5 from Nick Bebout  ---
I believe I have fixed those issues:

Spec URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Compress.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Compress-1.0.7-2.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 785495] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Data - Horde Data API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785495

--- Comment #6 from Nick Bebout  ---
Actually the new urls are

Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Data.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Data-1.0.9-2.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 785495] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Data - Horde Data API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785495

Nick Bebout  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|

--- Comment #5 from Nick Bebout  ---
I believe I have fixed the issues you have mentioned.

Spec URL: http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Data.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nb.fedorapeople.org/horde-reviews/php-horde-Horde-Data-1.0.9-1.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 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

--- Comment #2 from Simon A. Erat  ---
Created attachment 594205
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=594205&action=edit
F17-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 835089] Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

--- Comment #1 from Simon A. Erat  ---
Created attachment 594204
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=594204&action=edit
Spec-File

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835103] New: Review Request: perl-Pod-Parser - Basic perl modules for handling Plain Old Documentation (POD)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835103

Bug ID: 835103
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: perl-Pod-Parser - Basic perl modules
for handling Plain Old Documentation (POD)
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Pod-Parser/perl-Pod-Parser.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Pod-Parser/perl-Pod-Parser-1.51-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description:
This software distribution contains the packages for using Perl5 POD (Plain
Old Documentation). See the "perlpod" and "perlsyn" manual pages from your
Perl5 distribution for more information about POD.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar


This is dual-lived Perl package. It will get built into F18 after sub-packaging
the module from perl-5.16.0.

-- 
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 835099] Review Request: kde-base-artwork - KDE Base Artwork

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835099

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
  Alias||kde-base-artwork

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835099] New: Review Request: kde-base-artwork - KDE Base Artwork

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835099

Bug ID: 835099
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: kde-base-artwork - KDE Base Artwork
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL:
http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kde-base-artwork/kde-base-artwork.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kde-base-artwork/kde-base-artwork-4.8.90-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: KDE Base Artwork
Fedora Account System Username: rdieter

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 832666] Review Request: kfaenza-icon-theme - Faenza-Cupertino Icon Theme for KDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832666

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu

--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  ---
pre-review comments:

1.  missing icon-related scriptlets,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache

Didn't look to check yet, but this theme may benefit from including
Inherits=faenza
in it's theme file.

from  faenza-icon-theme already in fedora.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 835089] New: Package Review Request for Script-Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089

Bug ID: 835089
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: Package Review Request for Script-Tools
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: erat.si...@gmail.com
  Type: Bug
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: noarch
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Hello,
my name is Simon and i've been a hobby developer for 18 years, writing
game-addons, game-managers with Visual Basic 4-6 & .Net, batch files, vb
scripts, php, html, and very little c#.
I was a self employed computer & network supporter for small & middle
companies, later employed by a 3 letter IT company, and the biggest swiss
insurance.

Script-Tools are ment to help you with repeative tasks, such as building RPM's,
make a tarball from your development directory, upload your code to
sourceforge, to name whats currently working, only.
Currently enhancing the support for rpm builds, SF git handling (branches dont
yet work as it should), and add an SSH handler.

The scripts may also help to install a GUI upon a minimal fedora installation.
Best experience is achieved by waiting for netinstall-anaconda to display the
"installation done" screen DONT reboot but switch to alt+ctrl+f2, and start the
script from a mounted partition, or from a usb device. CHROOT /mnt/sysimage and
run "st set".
However, it also works well after a reboot if the device has wired internet.

There is also a Tweak section, offering to modify GRUB2 default values, enable
splashscreen for example, or services (systemctl).
Due to no feedback, i couldnt improve the "st tweak services" as much as it
probably could.

Many things to become implemented again from previous scripts of mine, such as
a cron handler, random background (wallpaper) changer, an useragent generator
for firefox, and more, after the dev section is working as intended.

The script is currently regarded ALPHA:
more:   http://sea.hostingsociety.com/dev
source: https://sourceforge.net/p/script-tools/code/
spec:   http://sea.hostingsociety.com/dev/script-tools.spec
srpm:  
http://sourceforge.net/projects/script-tools/files/srpm/script-tools-0.6.3-1.fc17.src.rpm/download


Currently reconfigure FAS so i can access Koji again, to build for  F15,F16 and
rawhide.
I am aware that the specfile yet still misses a version check, going to be
fixed within the next 2 upstreams. If my tries with it work until then.

Also, if you want to be my Mentor (sponsor?), i'd be very happy as i'm still
looking for someone ;)

Thank you for reading,
regards
Simon aka sea

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review