[Bug 829402] Review Request: jbosgi-vfs - JBoss OSGi Virtual File System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829402 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830125] Review Request: jbosgi-spi - JBossOSGi SPI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830125 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835064] Review Request: perl-Devel-DProf - Deprecated Perl code profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835064
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[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
[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)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[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 using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 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.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:
Package 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/
[Bug 830743] Review Request: lohit-tamil-classical-fonts - Free Tamil classical sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830743 Pravin Satpute changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-28 03:19:20 --- Comment #7 from Pravin Satpute --- Thank you Jon for git. Build for Fedora 17 and 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 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4203946 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
Björn Persson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se
--- Comment #2 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> how can i fix the error for debuginfo subpackage?
The debuginfo subpackage from Koji does have source files. I'm not sure what
went wrong with yours, but I've seen similar problems before. Are there any
symbolic links or bind mounts involved in the path to your rpmbuild directory?
> Another question: Should GMGPL be added to the accepted licenses? It
> basically is a GPLv2+ with linking exception. Or is "GPLv2+ with exceptions"
> good enough?
I think "GPLv2+ with exceptions" is good, but if you want a more authoritative
answer you can ask on the legal mailing list, le...@lists.fedoraproject.org.
Here's what I have found in the package:
· Instead of pointing to the AWS page that doesn't describe Templates Parser, I
suggest pointing to the documentation:
http://docs.adacore.com/aws-docs/templates_parser.html
· The tarball shrinks by 93% if you add --exclude-vcs to the tar command.
· Please build and package the documentation. Add "BuildRequires: texinfo-tex",
and "make doc" under %build. (Don't use _smp_mflags here, because that causes
docs/makefile to break.)
· Don't include the license field in subpackages unless it differs from the
base package.
· _GNAT_project_dir must be used. Pass "I_GPR=%{_GNAT_project_dir}
I_TGP=%{_GNAT_project_dir}/templates_parser" to make install.
· The link named %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{version} doesn't help with
anything. Nothing will be looking for that filename because the library has no
soname, so the library won't be found at run time unless a runpath is used.
Here's a patch to add a soname:
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/38.html
· ldconfig must be called. Add the following to the spec file:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
· Wouldn't it be nice to also package templates2ada and templatespp? I suggest
putting them in a subpackage named templates_parser-tools with the group field
set to "Applications/Text".
See also these patches:
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/36.html
http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/37.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835064] Review Request: perl-Devel-DProf - Deprecated Perl code profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835064 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Devel-DProf Short Description: Deprecated Perl code profiler Owners: ppisar jplesnik mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835064] Review Request: perl-Devel-DProf - Deprecated Perl code profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835064 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juan.hernan...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández --- I am taking this for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
--- Comment #3 from Julian Leyh ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Thanks for your nice review! Helps me a lot.
> The debuginfo subpackage from Koji does have source files. I'm not sure what
> went wrong with yours, but I've seen similar problems before. Are there any
> symbolic links or bind mounts involved in the path to your rpmbuild
> directory?
yeah.. I have put the rpmbuild directory on a different location and symlinked
it from $HOME. I will try out without symlink.
> Here's what I have found in the package:
>
> · Instead of pointing to the AWS page that doesn't describe Templates
> Parser, I suggest pointing to the documentation:
> http://docs.adacore.com/aws-docs/templates_parser.html
Okay.
> · The tarball shrinks by 93% if you add --exclude-vcs to the tar command.
I didn't know this option, thanks!
> · Please build and package the documentation. Add "BuildRequires:
> texinfo-tex", and "make doc" under %build. (Don't use _smp_mflags here,
> because that causes docs/makefile to break.)
Should the documentation go into a separate subpackage? %name-docs?
> · Don't include the license field in subpackages unless it differs from the
> base package.
Okay.
> · _GNAT_project_dir must be used. Pass "I_GPR=%{_GNAT_project_dir}
> I_TGP=%{_GNAT_project_dir}/templates_parser" to make install.
I left this out, because it was the same. But I do see the point, it might be
somewhere else. Will change.
> · The link named %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{version} doesn't help with
> anything. Nothing will be looking for that filename because the library has
> no soname, so the library won't be found at run time unless a runpath is
> used. Here's a patch to add a soname:
> http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/38.html
Didn't really know if soname is necessary or not. In #fedora-devel nobody could
give me a definite answer. About the patch you mention: if I understand
correctly, it makes the library file "lib%{name}-%{version}.so", the version
before the ".so". Should I change it like that?
> · ldconfig must be called. Add the following to the spec file:
>
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
>
> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Yeah, forgot those.. This is my first library package, will add them.
> · Wouldn't it be nice to also package templates2ada and templatespp? I
> suggest putting them in a subpackage named templates_parser-tools with the
> group field set to "Applications/Text".
>
> See also these patches:
> http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/36.html
> http://lists.forge.open-do.org/pipermail/aws-patches/2012-June/37.html
Thanks, I will add the tools subpackage.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 --- Comment #4 from Julian Leyh --- This library can be compiled for static linking. Should this be added, too? If yes, xmlada should add the static libraries, too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 --- Comment #58 from Renich Bon Ciric --- ping -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834239] Review Request: monobristol - frontend for britsol in mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239
--- Comment #10 from Jørn Lomax ---
SPEC: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/monobristol.spec
SRPMS:
http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/monobristol-0.60.3-6.fc17.src.rpm
No interesting rpmlint for either the .spec or rpms
rpmlint on built package on the other hand:
monobristol.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subtractive ->
subtracting, subtracted, subtract
monobristol.i686: E: no-binary
monobristol.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monobristol.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary monobristol
monobristol.i686: W: percent-in-%post
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
I think it's "%{_datadir}" that it doesn't like having in post, so i think it
can be ignored
I still haven't heard back from upstream, so i'll just label it as GPL+
Bristol does not automatically create jack connections, so you might have to
connected it yourself. I also have trouble with the volume on Bristol being low
at times too. Not sure if that's a Bristol issue or my setup
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834069] Review Request: Clean - The Clean language compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
Thanks for your feedback.
New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-3.spec
New SRPM:
http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-3.fc17.src.rpm
New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4204007
t
I have renamed the package to clean, with lowercase c, thanks for clearing that
up.
I have removed the %dir lines, because according to the RPM manual (at
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html), the RPM
should already claim the directory without it, and %dir indicates you only want
the directory.
The %doc lines have been fixed.
The wrong-file-end-of-line encoding has been converted.
I was patching clm to use %{_libdir}, the "patch to use /bin" was only a
commentary issue, but has been fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446
--- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
Output of rpmlint of the source package:
$ rpmlint arquillian-osgi-1.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
arquillian-osgi.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
arquillian-container-osgi-1.0.2.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
This warning is acceptable as the source was checked out from the source
repository.
Output of rpmlint of the binary packages:
rpmlint arquillian-osgi-1.0.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
arquillian-osgi-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
arquillian-osgi.noarch: W: no-documentation
arquillian-osgi-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs ->
Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These warnings are acceptable.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Most of the source files in this package state that the license is ASL 2.0, for
example this one:
protocol-osgi/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/protocol/osgi/JMXOSGiProtocol.java
Others state that thy use LGPLv2+, for example this:
bundle/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/osgi/ArquillianBundleActivator.java
So I think the license should be:
ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+
[-] 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.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[-] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: 57be562609e30c2dbb8c9687b51b22ed
MD5SUM upstream package: 57be562609e30c2dbb8c9687b51b22ed
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[-] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
The package is based on commit ee57fcf6b8c75a5809e21accc4c90773a2b08b4a,
instead of tag 1.0.2.Final. This tag points to that commit, but was probably
created after the spec, not a big issue.
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should te
[Bug 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann --- Fixed both issues. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/arquillian-osgi/1.0.2-2/arquillian-osgi.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/arquillian-osgi/1.0.2-2/arquillian-osgi-1.0.2-2.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 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Juan Hernández --- It is ok now, thanks Marek! *** 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 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: arquillian-osgi Short Description: Arquillian OSGi Owners: goldmann Branches: f17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834981] Review Request: rubygem-heroku-api - Ruby Client for the Heroku API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834981 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-28 05:01:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829726] Review Request: wmmon - Nice system monitor for WindowMaker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829726
--- Comment #2 from Alexey I. Froloff ---
http://raorn.fedorapeople.org/packages/wmmon/wmmon-1.0-0.1.b2.20120606git575778a6.fc17.src.rpm
diff --git a/wmmon.spec b/wmmon.spec
index 9726a51..3c66198 100644
--- a/wmmon.spec
+++ b/wmmon.spec
@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
+%define snapdate 20120606
%define treeish575778a6
%define beta b2
Name: wmmon
Version: 1.0
-Release: 1%{?beta:.%{beta}}.g%{treeish}%{?dist}
+Release: %{?beta:0.}1%{?beta:.%{beta}}.%{snapdate}git%{treeish}%{?dist}
Summary: Nice system monitor for WindowMaker
Group: User Interface/X
@@ -59,5 +60,5 @@ install -p -m644 dockapps/wmmon/wmmon.1
%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/wmmon.1
%{_mandir}/man1/wmmon.1*
%changelog
-* Wed Jun 06 2012 Alexey I. Froloff - 1.0-1.b2.g575778a6
+* Thu Jun 28 2012 Alexey I. Froloff -
1.0-0.1.b2.20120606git575778a6
- Initial build for Fedora
This looks terrible, however...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836163] New: Review Request: compton - Compositor for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836163 Bug ID: 836163 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: compton - Compositor for X Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/compton.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/compton-0.1-20120603gitd52f7a0.fc17.src.rpm Description: Compton is a compositor for X, and a fork of xcompmgr-dana. Fedora Account System Username:mariobl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4204055 Compton ships a script named "settrans" which sets the transparency of a window. For the time being, we don't have a "settrans" script or binary in Fedora, only a network script in GNU Hurd is known to me. But to avoid naming conflicts in the future, I've filed a bug report: https://github.com/chjj/compton/issues/33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443 Satya Komaragiri changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||satya.komarag...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|satya.komarag...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember --- Regarding the naming issue that Erik pointed out: The MinGW Packaging Guidelines are for library packages that can be used for building Windows apps. But this package is different; it only installs a .msi and no dlls / header files and is apparently only meant for use within Wine. As such, perhaps it would be clearer if it's called 'wine-mono'? This package is really just another component for the wine stack, even though it's built using the mingw cross compiler. I don't think the mingw naming guidelines are applicable here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830287] Review Request: clojure-contrib - User contributions library for Clojure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830287 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov --- I'll review it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443
--- Comment #1 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
[!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
There are some .class files in src/test/resources. Please remove them.
There is also a .dll file, I am not sure if that is allowed considering
binaries are not allowed in sources.
[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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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.
[?]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[-]: 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.
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
This can be ignored. Since the package was tested with some dependencies
installed
from scratch builds.
[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.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
The review request describes why it is not possible to use the latest version.
[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.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0: jbosgi-repository-%{namedversion}.tar.xz (jbosgi-
repository-%{namedversion}.tar.xz) Patch0: 0001-Drop-osgi.enterprise-
dependency.patch (0001-Drop-osgi.enterprise-dependency.patch) Patch1:
0002-Disable-itests-module.patch (0002-Disable-itests-module.patch)
The explanation was provided in a similar review request at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830750#c5
[-]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file c
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443
--- Comment #2 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
[!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
There are some .class files in src/test/resources. Please remove them.
There is also a .dll file, I am not sure if that is allowed considering
binaries are not allowed in sources.
[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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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.
[?]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[-]: 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.
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
This can be ignored. Since the package was tested with some dependencies
installed
from scratch builds.
[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.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
The review request describes why it is not possible to use the latest version.
[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.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0: jbosgi-repository-%{namedversion}.tar.xz (jbosgi-
repository-%{namedversion}.tar.xz) Patch0: 0001-Drop-osgi.enterprise-
dependency.patch (0001-Drop-osgi.enterprise-dependency.patch) Patch1:
0002-Disable-itests-module.patch (0002-Disable-itests-module.patch)
The explanation was provided in a similar review request at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830750#c5
[-]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file c
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443 Satya Komaragiri changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Satya Komaragiri --- Apologies for the double post. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830287] Review Request: clojure-contrib - User contributions library for Clojure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830287
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-18:
* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4204258
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent (except of false positive misspelling-related messages and
bogus mnessage re\garding GitHub sources)
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint clojure-contrib-1.2.0-1.fc18.*
clojure-contrib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces ->
name spaces, name-spaces, names paces
clojure-contrib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j
son
clojure-contrib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name
spaces, name-spaces, names paces
clojure-contrib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son
clojure-contrib.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
clojure-clojure-contrib-1.2.0-0-g2a4e52d.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. (See also these ones -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java )
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
(Eclipse Public License as stated in README.txt).
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum
clojure-clojure-contrib-1.2.0-0-g2a4e52d.tar.gz*
f0d93ce686fe3d8c395bcbb1d5fca236fc8c8c785a768b11cd7fd63ad98bbfcb
clojure-clojure-contrib-1.2.0-0-g2a4e52d.tar.gz
f0d93ce686fe3d8c395bcbb1d5fca236fc8c8c785a768b11cd7fd63ad98bbfcb
clojure-clojure-contrib-1.2.0-0-g2a4e52d.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
I don't see any issues so this package is
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833853] Review Request: libkolab - Kolab Format Handler library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833853 --- Comment #8 from Jeroen van Meeuwen --- (In reply to comment #6) > To be clear, 5.fc17.kolab_3.0 is not a valid Release tag for a prerelease > snapshot for several reasons: > * The tag before the disttag must be of the form 0.n where n is an integer, > e.g. "0.5" rather than just "5". Agreed, this was my mistake in updating from a released 0.2 series version to the git master snapshot, and now there's little opportunity to roll back without bumping the epoch. > * "kolab_3.0" is not a valid snapshot tag, should be of the form > "20120627git" or "20120627git54d11d06". It is, as Rex already mentioned, our buildsystem dist-tag that does this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833853] Review Request: libkolab - Kolab Format Handler library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833853 Jeroen van Meeuwen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Jeroen van Meeuwen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libkolab Short Description: Kolab Format Handler library Owners: kanarip Branches: el6 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832810] Review Request: perl-Method-Signatures - Method and function declarations with signatures and no source filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832810 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832810] Review Request: perl-Method-Signatures - Method and function declarations with signatures and no source filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832810 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Method-Signatures-20120523-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Method-Signatures-20120523-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832810] Review Request: perl-Method-Signatures - Method and function declarations with signatures and no source filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832810 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Method-Signatures-20120523-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Method-Signatures-20120523-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809540] Review Request: eclipselink - Eclipse Persistence Services Project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809540 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824976] Review Request: glassfish-toplink-essentials - Glassfish JPA Toplink Essentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824976 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825825] Review Request: struts - Web application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825825 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826645] Review Request: velocity-tools - Collection of useful tools for Velocity template engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826645 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820548] Review Request: jasperreports - Report-generating tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820548 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443 --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann --- I fixed the typing issues and removed the binaries. For the deps list - I took only what's listed in pom files for this project, nothing more (no transitive deps) were added. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-repository/1.0.5-2/jbosgi-repository.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-repository/1.0.5-2/jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.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 825750] Review Request: tiles - Java templating framework for web application user interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825750 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823889] Review Request: openjpa - Java Persistence 2.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836163] Review Request: compton - Compositor for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836163 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov --- I'll review it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832439] Review Request: jbosgi-resolver - Standalone OSGi Resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832439 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833853] Review Request: libkolab - Kolab Format Handler library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833853 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835064] Review Request: perl-Devel-DProf - Deprecated Perl code profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835064 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832810] Review Request: perl-Method-Signatures - Method and function declarations with signatures and no source filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832810 --- Comment #6 from Iain Arnell --- Thanks for the review, Petr. I've added the additional BRs, except Role::Basic which we don't (yet) have. Upstream notes in the test, though, that Role::Basic support isn't really a viable use 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 834239] Review Request: monobristol - frontend for britsol in mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239
--- Comment #11 from Orcan Ogetbil ---
Thanks for the quick update.
(In reply to comment #10)
> monobristol.i686: W: percent-in-%post
> I think it's "%{_datadir}" that it doesn't like having in post, so i think
> it can be ignored
>
I think this is because of "%postrun". It needs to be "%postun".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835064] Review Request: perl-Devel-DProf - Deprecated Perl code profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835064 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. This package will be built into f18-perl only and merged into f18 together with perl 5.16. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443 Satya Komaragiri changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Satya Komaragiri --- Thanks! Package 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 836163] Review Request: compton - Compositor for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836163
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
- rpmlint is NOT silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint compton-*
compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xcompmgr -> composer
compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dana -> Dana, Adana,
data
^^^ these messages can be ignored safely.
compton.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary settrans
^^^ likewise.
compton-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
^^^ this one can not. See below.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
- The package MUST meet the Packaging Guidelines.
-- First the package must be built with the Fedora $CFLAGS (which is the reason
that it has empty debuginfo). Please, use the following trick to adjust cflags
%build
CFLAGS="%{optflags}" make %{?_smp_mflags}
-- Please drop an extension from a man-page. This is quite unlikely possibility
but Fedora potentially could change the compression method (or even drop its
usage at all) for the man-pages. Use wildcard instead. E.g.
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
-- The settrans script requires xorg-x11-utils so please add this as a
requirement:
Requires: xorg-x11-utils
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license. An
what I see at the LICENSE is definitely not a "Copyright only" but rather a
BSD:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD
So proper tag is BSD.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum chjj-compton-d52f7a0.tar.gz*
a2a6d89d00d2b2a1b4340c5762010bfdbf6769928d8553a4b7dd3ca2ad332e78
chjj-compton-d52f7a0.tar.gz
a2a6d89d00d2b2a1b4340c5762010bfdbf6769928d8553a4b7dd3ca2ad332e78
chjj-compton-d52f7a0.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Please fix/explain issues and I'll finish reviewing it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jbosgi-repository Short Description: JBossOSGi Repository Owners: goldmann Branches: f17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832439] Review Request: jbosgi-resolver - Standalone OSGi Resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832439 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- jbosgi-resolver-2.0.0-0.2.Beta2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosgi-resolver-2.0.0-0.2.Beta2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835617] Review Request: roundcubemail-plugins-kolab - Kolab plugins for Roundcube
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835617
--- Comment #2 from Jeroen van Meeuwen ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Initial notes:
>
>
> See the following for proper git snapshot versioning.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
>
Corrected to include the date the snapshot is taken, and the short rev used.
I'm going to have to keep the 0.12 prefix and can't go with simply
0.git$date.$rev yet, as 0.11 is already out there.
For snapshots, I target to use 0.$x.git if that's OK with you.
> roundcubemail-plugins-kolab.spec:22: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
> roundcubemail-kolab
> The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
> older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause
> update
> problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
> was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
> possible.
>
Updated to obsolete only roundcubemail-kolab < %{version}-%{release}
> roundcubemail-plugins-kolab.noarch: W: self-obsoletion roundcubemail-kolab
> obsoletes roundcubemail-kolab = 3.0-0.11.fc17
>
Corrected by versioning the obsoletes.
> Several files in /etc/roundcubemail/ that are 640, should be 644.
>
This is deliberate - only the apache user/group and superusers should be able
to read these files (they likely contain passwords to access databases, LDAP
and IMAP with privileged accounts). Other POSIX users should not have read
access to these files.
> roundcubemail-plugins-kolab.src: W: invalid-license GPL
>
> Should be GPLv3+
Corrected.
Spec URL:
http://git.kolabsys.com/rpm/roundcubemail-plugins-kolab/plain/roundcubemail-plugins-kolab.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mirror.kolabsys.com/pub/fedora/kolab-3.0/f17/development/SRPMS/roundcubemail-plugins-kolab-3.0-0.13.git20120628.c5c41f7f.fc17.kolab_3.0.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833411] Review Request: realmd - Kerberos realm enrollment service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833411 Stef Walter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Stef Walter --- Thanks guys. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: realmd Short Description: realmd is a dbus system service which manages discovery and enrollment in realms and domains like Active Directory or IPA. Owners: stefw Branches: InitialCC: baz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832446] Review Request: arquillian-osgi - Arquillian OSGi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832446 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- arquillian-osgi-1.0.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/arquillian-osgi-1.0.2-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835051] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoLicense - Module::Install extension to automatically generate LICENSE files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835051 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- perl(Module::Install::GithubMeta) is only required in inc/Module/Install/GithubMeta.pm which is removed during %setup; I believe you could drop it from your BRs. The rest seems good to me. Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: Script-Tools - A script framework based on bash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089 --- Comment #10 from Simon A. Erat --- Update: --- Since the package is very small, I reconsidered to make the rpm not relocatable. Further, as i consider it alpha, changed the specfile accordingly. Upstream: - Spec: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/dev/script-tools.spec SRPM: http://sea.hostingsociety.com/dev/script-tools-0.6.3-4.fc17.alpha1.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 835051] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoLicense - Module::Install extension to automatically generate LICENSE files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835051 --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova --- perl(Module::Install::GithubMeta) is required for Makefile.PL, because it uses the function githubmeta. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835051] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoLicense - Module::Install extension to automatically generate LICENSE files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835051 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Module-Install-AutoLicense Short Description: Module::Install extension to automatically generate LICENSE files Owners: jplesnik mmaslano ppisar psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Bierfert --- I am fine with it either way. However, if we decide on wine-mono we should rename the gecko stuff accordingly... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833411] Review Request: realmd - Kerberos realm enrollment service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833411 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Removed baz, not a valid FAS account. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835051] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoLicense - Module::Install extension to automatically generate LICENSE files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835051 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833353] Review request: ws-xmlschema - Apache XMLSchema
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833353 --- Comment #5 from Patryk Obara --- Spec URL: http://dreamertan.fedorapeople.org/srpm/ws-xmlschema/2.0.2-2.fc17/ws-xmlschema.spec SRPM URL: http://dreamertan.fedorapeople.org/srpm/ws-xmlschema/2.0.2-2.fc17/ws-xmlschema-2.0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4204995 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829726] Review Request: wmmon - Nice system monitor for WindowMaker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829726 Andreas Bierfert changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Andreas Bierfert --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * MUST rpmlint: ok, false positives on spelling. * package naming: ok * package guideline complience: ok * license: ok * license field: ok * spec language and legible: ok * source: ok, pulled from git. Documented in spec. * builds on f17 and rawhide koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4204988 * BR: ok * file permissions: ok * desktop file: not needed as this is a specialized dockapp * package runs on f17: ok * man page included: ok package 2f9533456e0c5ecba55a499cc9e78bd90330ac1e70d9f72f55468fb96994126e wmmon-1.0-0.1.b2.20120606git575778a6.fc17.src.rpm approved -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/sY5UACgkQQEQyPsWM8cuhFACcC8YtkvFFV8Xx96ggHd+x9+1u XHkAoJPn73OaFkGOpxFrXcSYk8/1Ouoo =7dew -END PGP SIGNATURE- Please add me as CC on the SCM request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829726] Review Request: wmmon - Nice system monitor for WindowMaker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829726 Alexey I. Froloff changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Alexey I. Froloff --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: wmmon Short Description: Nice system monitor for WindowMaker Owners: raorn Branches: f17 InitialCC: awjb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834069] Review Request: Clean - The Clean language compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069
--- Comment #8 from Paul Wouters ---
Package is APPROVED. Now let's get you a sponsor
All listed issues above addressed. Mock builds. Compiling and running a small
test program works. rpmlint warnings understood and ok:
clean.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean
clean.src:66: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch0: %{name}.makefiles.patch
clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch1: %{name}.32bit.patch
clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch2: %{name}.64bit.patch
clean.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean
clean.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/clm
clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/htoclean
clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/linker
clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/cocl
clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startup.dcl
clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupTrace.dcl
clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_system.dcl
clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupProfile.dcl
clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_library.dcl
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 10 warnings.
Minor: Probably remove or fixup /usr/share/doc/clean-2.4/Examples/make.bat for
Linux when you make the next release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829726] Review Request: wmmon - Nice system monitor for WindowMaker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829726 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835062] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod - Module::Install extension to automatically convert POD to a README
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835062 Bug 835062 depends on bug 835051, which changed state. Bug 835051 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoLicense - Module::Install extension to automatically generate LICENSE files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835051 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 835051] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoLicense - Module::Install extension to automatically generate LICENSE files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835051 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-06-28 10:40:38 --- Comment #5 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Thank you for the review and the 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 834069] Review Request: Clean - The Clean language compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Thank you! Should I (according to the "How to get sponsored into the packager group" wiki page) try to contact current sponsors (by IRC) or review, or do you have contacts for that purpose? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833204] Review Request: python-pyramid-tm - Allows pyramid requests to join the active transaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833204 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-pyramid-tm-0.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyramid-tm-0.4-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832443] Review Request: jbosgi-repository - JBossOSGi Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832443 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834069] Review Request: clean - The Clean language compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Clean - The |Review Request: clean - The |Clean language compiler |Clean language compiler -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826645] Review Request: velocity-tools - Collection of useful tools for Velocity template engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826645 Patryk Obara changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pob...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pob...@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 824976] Review Request: glassfish-toplink-essentials - Glassfish JPA Toplink Essentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824976 Patryk Obara changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pob...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pob...@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 817302] Review Request: php-twig-Twig - Twig is a modern template engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817302 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-twig-Twig-1.8.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 817303] Review Request: php-symfony2-Yaml - Symfony2 Yaml Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817303 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Yaml-2.0.15-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 823065] Review Request: php-symfony2-Translation - Symfony2 Translation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823065 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Translation-2.0.15-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 818297] Review Request: fedmsg - Tools for Fedora Infrastructure real-time messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818297 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- fedmsg-0.2.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 823073] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpKernel - Symfony2 HttpKernel Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823073 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-HttpKernel-2.0.15-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 823042] Review Request: php-symfony2-Config - Symfony2 Config Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823042 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Config-2.0.15-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 823017] Review Request: erlang-gtknode - Erlang GTK2 binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823017 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-gtknode-0.32-2.20110310git19ddfd5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 823044] Review Request: php-symfony2-CssSelector - Symfony2 CssSelector Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823044 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-CssSelector-2.0.15-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 823056] Review Request: php-symfony2-Locale - Symfony2 Locale Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823056 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Locale-2.0.15-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 830287] Review Request: clojure-contrib - User contributions library for Clojure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830287 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clojure-contrib Short Description: User contributions library for Clojure Owners: salimma Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830287] Review Request: clojure-contrib - User contributions library for Clojure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830287 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824976] Review Request: glassfish-toplink-essentials - Glassfish JPA Toplink Essentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824976 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-toplink-essentials/2/glassfish-toplink-essentials.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-toplink-essentials/2/glassfish-toplink-essentials-2.0.46-1.fc16.src.rpm tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4206022 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824976] Review Request: glassfish-toplink-essentials - Glassfish JPA Toplink Essentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824976 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-toplink-essentials/2/glassfish-toplink-essentials.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-toplink-essentials/2/glassfish-toplink-essentials-2.0.46-2.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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clucy Short Description: Clojure interface to Lucene Owners: salimma Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824976] Review Request: glassfish-toplink-essentials - Glassfish JPA Toplink Essentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824976
--- Comment #3 from Patryk Obara ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint glassfish-toplink-essentials.spec
glassfish-toplink-essentials.spec: W: invalid-url Source1:
glassfish-bootstrap.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint glassfish-toplink-essentials-2.0.46-2.fc16.src.rpm
glassfish-toplink-essentials.src: W: invalid-url Source1:
glassfish-bootstrap.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings
$ rpmlint glassfish-toplink-essentials-2.0.46-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint glassfish-toplink-essentials-javadoc-2.0.46-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
See Issue (1)
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[x] 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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
glassfish-persistence-v2-b46-src.zip :
MD5SUM this package : efd7acb74e5b6417d29801ad70e6c883
MD5SUM upstream package : efd7acb74e5b6417d29801ad70e6c883
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[-] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
See Issue (1)
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[!] Latest version is packaged.
Issue (2)
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4205990
=== Issues ===
1. You're placing jars in glassfish directory, but this dir is not owned by
any package. There are only 2 jar files, so you don't need to put them
into subdir; simply put both files in %{_javadir}.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
2. I am not sure where does version come from; do you really need to download
part from 2.0 and part f
[Bug 824976] Review Request: glassfish-toplink-essentials - Glassfish JPA Toplink Essentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824976 --- Comment #4 from Patryk Obara --- [x] Rpmlint output (I forgot to change it from review of release 1) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek --- I was just about to propose the exact same thing about the package naming :) I'm +1 to use the package name wine-mono given the situation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820548] Review Request: jasperreports - Report-generating tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820548 Patryk Obara changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pob...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pob...@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 835099] Review Request: kde-base-artwork - KDE Base Artwork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835099 Simon A. Erat changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erat.si...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Simon A. Erat --- Hoi Rex Invalid Source0: ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.8.90/src/kde-base-artwork-4.8.90.tar.xz... Probably its a tar.gz or reviewer needs special permission to access source location? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833855] Review Request: console-setup - Tools for configuring the console using X Window System keymaps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833855 --- Comment #7 from Jef Spaleta --- Hey, just a heads up it seems you might want to talk with the systemd-devels about console-setup integration with systemd. Relevant message from relevant thread: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-June/005688.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
