[Bug 832007] Review Request: mingw-webkitgtk3 - MinGW Windows GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832007 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mingw-webkitgtk3-1.8.1-1.fc ||17 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-06-29 02:54:21 --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember --- Package imported and built; closing the ticket. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835432] Review Request: python-pycxx - Write Python extensions in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835432 --- Comment #22 from John Morris --- Woo hoo, I'm a packager! Thank you Matthias. (In reply to comment #20) > Or course one of the big differences with packaging for a distro vs. > packaging for yourself is you have to be more rigorous and unambiguous > because someone else might need to update your package and they may not have > the intimate knowledge of the package and rely on a nice clean spec with > good comments to minimize mistakes. This is especially important in packages > like this which are unusual. Yeah! Like I said in comment #1, I've written packages for years, but only for my own repos. You guys have helped me jump up a few levels in just a few days. > Tough? This is just the informal review. Wait until I start the formal > review :) Bring it on! ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835823] Review Request: python-lettuce - Behaviour Driven Development for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835823 --- Comment #6 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- (In reply to comment #5) > Yepp, taking this one. > > John, > > I guess (I'm nearly 100% sure), Slavek is targeting towards F18; > python-fuzzywuzzy and python-sure are built and pushed to rawhide (currently > the same as f18) Yes, exactly. John, if you wish to use lettuce in F17 or below (or EPEL), I can make some modifications to the specfile, so that it works with "Django" package - drop me a line, if you want that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835432] Review Request: python-pycxx - Write Python extensions in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835432 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #21 from Matthias Runge --- John, I've sponsored you. Richard, just go ahead with the 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 835823] Review Request: python-lettuce - Behaviour Driven Development for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835823 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge --- Yepp, taking this one. John, I guess (I'm nearly 100% sure), Slavek is targeting towards F18; python-fuzzywuzzy and python-sure are built and pushed to rawhide (currently the same as f18) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833462] Review Request: hawkey - A Library providing simplified C and Python API to libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833462 --- Comment #13 from Scott Tsai --- Ales, while I have your attention I'll raise a few issue non-packaging related issues that I see in hawkey: 1. You don't tag your releases in git. Instead you seem to commit a change to hawkey.spec in upstream git with an over detailed changelog entry on release. I understand you're doing both upstream development and Fedora packaging and don't want to be bogged down with busy work but if you look at the Fedora gnome or yum packages etc, they tag their upstream releases and their RPM changelog just say "New upstream release". 2. You might want to register the name "hawkey" in the Python package index to avoid name conflicts. See: http://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=submit_form You can always relinquish the name later if the hawkey project prove to be short lived because all its functionality got merged back into libsolv and rpm-libs etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833462] Review Request: hawkey - A Library providing simplified C and Python API to libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833462
--- Comment #12 from Scott Tsai ---
This review is against the latest .spec file in hawkey git:
1. Remove python2 from BuildRequires
python2-devel pulls it in anyway.
-BuildRequires: python2 python2-devel
+BuildRequires: python2-devel
2. Remove "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" from %install section
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Only needed if you're targetting EPEL5.
3. Quote _includedir like other RPM directory name macros
-%_includedir/hawkey/
+%{_includedir}/hawkey/
I've uploaded a copy of hawkey.spec with my recommended changes above here:
http://scottt.tw/fedora/hawkey.spec
I'll approve this package once the points raised above are addressed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to comment #10) > I have updated the package as per your suggestion, the doc/Examples/make.bat > is removed. > I also strip bin/clm, as a debuginfo package is not usefull, but disabling > that also disables the stripping. I think, this all actually is related to (MUSTFIX) building not acknowledging RPM_OPT_FLAGS and it playing dirty gameswith CFLAGS: ... make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/clean/src/CodeGenerator' gcc -DI486 -DGNU_C -DLINUX -DLINUX_ELF -DG_AI64 -O -fomit-frame-pointer -c -o cg.o cg.c ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825854] Review Request: zita-alsa-pcmi - alsa pcm libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854 Orcan Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #31 from Orcan Ogetbil --- I think this package is good to go. You have shown us so far that you can follow the reviewer's feedback and the packaging guidelines. Besides this package, you also submitted another one in bug #834239 (a mono package that has a different structure than this one) which is in good shape. You made a few informal package rewiews, but trust me, more won't hurt. Actually, following the review guidelines [1] bullet to bullet teaches a lot. I am sponsoring you now. Welcome to Fedora. Next, you can file an SCM request [2] and then import your files and build the official package by following [3]. Furthermore, I encourage you to finish the informal reviews you started, unless they were taken over by someone else. As a packager, you are allowed to maintain and co-maintain Fedora packages. If you have any questions at any point, please do not hesitate to contact me. - This package (zita-alsa-pcmi) is APPROVED by oget - [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests [3]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835823] Review Request: python-lettuce - Behaviour Driven Development for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835823 --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- (In reply to comment #3) > Hi Bohuslav, > > There's no 'python-django' package in Fedora. Did you mean 'Django'? > Yes, it is. Django has been renamed to python-django beginning with F18 - see https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/146. > Once python-fuzzywuzzy and python-sure make it into the testing repos I'll > give it another whirl. I thing Matthias may have wanted to take this review, but I think he won't mind if you take it. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834069] Review Request: clean - The Clean language compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069 --- Comment #10 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- I have updated the package as per your suggestion, the doc/Examples/make.bat is removed. I also strip bin/clm, as a debuginfo package is not usefull, but disabling that also disables the stripping. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-4.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-4.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4206767 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993
--- Comment #4 from John Morris ---
Hi Benedikt, here are a few issues, the first detected by fedora-review, the
rest I found myself. Be sure to check the attached review. I checked most of
the items, but left a few blank.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
** rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install; is this intended for EPEL5?
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
** There is an %{_iconsdir} macro; could replace %{_datadir}/icons
** There is a %{_desktopdir} macro; could replace %{_datadir}/applications
[!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
** Does this pkg need to own all those directories in %{_iconsdir}?
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Patch0: l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-missing-semicolon.patch
(l3afpad-0.8.18.1.9-missing-semicolon.patch)
** I'd put:
** Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-missing-semicolon.patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993 --- Comment #3 from John Morris --- Created attachment 595172 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=595172&action=edit fedora-review for l3afpad Output of fedora-review; Items marked with a capital "X" are items I checked manually. Items needing attention pasted at bottom. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.3.0-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821802] Review Request: erlang-erlando - A set of syntax extensions for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821802 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835432] Review Request: python-pycxx - Write Python extensions in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835432 --- Comment #20 from Richard Shaw --- (In reply to comment #19) > Hi fellas, > > New package: > http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/python-pycxx.spec > http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/python-pycxx-6.2.4-1.fc16.src. > rpm Ok, I plan to find some time tomorrow to work on the review! > - Source files installed into /usr/src/CXX > - Complies with FHS, though not much written about it > - A precedent is dwm-user, which does very nearly the same thing > - If this is unacceptable, they can be moved into the headers directory Sounds OK to me. > (In reply to comment #17) > > [...] > > (In reply to comment #15) > > > - Own /usr/share/python2.7/ > > > > I'm concerned about this one. I'm not sure anything but python should own a > > directly like that. Perhaps /usr/src was a good idea? > > Fixed, see above. Agreed, /usr/src seems best, and /usr/share/python2.7 is > abominal. > > Whew! Y'all are tough! :) Tough? This is just the informal review. Wait until I start the formal review :) Mostly kidding there, the formal review is largely one giant checklist but I do occasionally find things I don't catch in a quick review. Or course one of the big differences with packaging for a distro vs. packaging for yourself is you have to be more rigorous and unambiguous because someone else might need to update your package and they may not have the intimate knowledge of the package and rely on a nice clean spec with good comments to minimize mistakes. This is especially important in packages like this which are unusual. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993 --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert --- Yes, l3afpad is not leafpad but a fork of it that builds against GTK3 and includes some bugfixes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833154] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jeetools - Frameworks and tools for Eclipse, focused on the development of J2EE artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833154 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|835338 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835338] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jst-web - Eclipse tools for working with JavaServer Pages (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835338 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Depends On|833154 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833154] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jeetools - Frameworks and tools for Eclipse, focused on the development of J2EE artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833154 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|833641 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833641] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jpa - Eclipse tools for definition of (O/R) mappings for JPA entities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833641 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|833154 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833641] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jpa - Eclipse tools for definition of (O/R) mappings for JPA entities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833641 Gerard Ryan 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 836403] Review Request: jbossxb - JBoss XML Binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836403 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||836404, 836400 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836403 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836400] Review Request: jboss-classpool-scoped - A custom class pool for several JBoss products.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836400 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836403 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836400] Review Request: jboss-classpool-scoped - A custom class pool for several JBoss products.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836400 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836404 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||836400 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] New: Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Bug ID: 836404 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: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ger...@ryan.lt Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.2.1-1/jboss-reflect.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.2.1-1/jboss-reflect-2.2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: JBoss Reflection Fedora Account System Username: galileo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836403] New: Review Request: jbossxb - JBoss XML Binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836403 Bug ID: 836403 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: jbossxb - JBoss XML Binding Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ger...@ryan.lt Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jbossxb/2.0.3-1/jbossxb.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jbossxb/2.0.3-1/jbossxb-2.0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: JBoss XML Binding Fedora Account System Username:galileo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836400] Review Request: jboss-classpool-scoped - A custom class pool for several JBoss products.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836400 Gerard Ryan 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 836400] New: Review Request: jboss-classpool-scoped - A custom class pool for several JBoss products.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836400 Bug ID: 836400 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: jboss-classpool-scoped - A custom class pool for several JBoss products. Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ger...@ryan.lt Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-classpool-scoped/1.0.0-1/jboss-classpool-scoped.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-classpool-scoped/1.0.0-1/jboss-classpool-scoped-1.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: A custom class pool for several JBoss products. This is needed for jbossxb, which is needed for JBoss Tools. Fedora Account System Username: galileo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824083] Review Request: nyancat - A terminal Nyan Cat renderer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824083
--- Comment #5 from Ricky Elrod ---
[ok] - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[ok] - Spec file matches base package name.
[ok] - Spec has consistant macro usage.
[ok] - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[ok - NCSA] - License
[ok] - License field in spec matches
[ok - see below] - License file included in package
[ok] - Spec in American English
[ok] - Spec is legible.
[ok] - Sources match upstream md5sum:
[ricky@t520 SPECS]$ md5sum ~/Downloads/klange-nyancat-5fe3de9.tar.gz
../SOURCES/klange-nyancat-5fe3de9.tar.gz
fef3b947260dcb191e2eed4bcc58b42c
/home/ricky/Downloads/klange-nyancat-5fe3de9.tar.gz
fef3b947260dcb191e2eed4bcc58b42c ../SOURCES/klange-nyancat-5fe3de9.tar.gz
[ok] - BuildRequires correct
[ok] - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
[ok] - Package has a correct %clean section.
[ok] - Package has correct buildroot
[ok] - Package is code or permissible content.
[ok] - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
[ok] - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
[ok] - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
[ok] - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[ok - see below] - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
[ok] - Should build in mock.
[ok] - Should build on all supported archs
[ok] - Should function as described.
[ok] - Should have dist tag
[ok] - Should package latest version
Issues:
1. Consider asking upstream to include a copy of the license in the repository.
(non-blocker)
2. I think the versioning is a bit off, consider:
Version:1
Release:0.1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
3. There's a manpage now (upstream repo), you probably should include this.
rpmlint output:
[ricky@t520 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../SRPMS/nyancat-1.0-1.20120522git5fe3de9.fc18.src.rpm
nyancat.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) renderer -> tenderer, rendered,
render er
nyancat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US poptart -> pop tart,
pop-tart, polestar
nyancat.src: W: invalid-url Source0: klange-nyancat-5fe3de9.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[ricky@t520 SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/x86_64/nyancat-1.0-1.20120522git5fe3de9.fc18.x86_64.rpm
nyancat.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) renderer -> tenderer,
rendered, render er
nyancat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US poptart -> pop tart,
pop-tart, polestar
nyancat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nyancat
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835823] Review Request: python-lettuce - Behaviour Driven Development for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835823 John Morris changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@zultron.com --- Comment #3 from John Morris --- Hi Bohuslav, There's no 'python-django' package in Fedora. Did you mean 'Django'? Once python-fuzzywuzzy and python-sure make it into the testing repos I'll give it another whirl. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993 John Morris changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@zultron.com --- Comment #1 from John Morris --- Hi Benedikt, Is your package different from the one already available in Fedora? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/applications/Leafpad?_csrf_token=70d0c084cbc576fc84e1b9af29b57c12a06ac409 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from gil cattaneo ---
=== 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
corrected
2. I am not sure where does version come from; do you really need to download
part from 2.0 and part from 2.1 branches?
yes is only required for build
and i take a suggestion from here
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=glassfish-persistence.spec&package=glassfish-persistence&project=Java%3Ajpackage-5.0&rev=e2131cccbf1f703e9677245b44be5d38
How about pulling only
http://dlc.sun.com.edgesuite.net/javaee5/v2.1.2_branch/promoted/source/glassfish-v2.1.2-b05g-src.zip
looks like it contains all the code you need.
i dont want import glassfish 2.x and the source package is very big for 1
library (37MB)
Does it need to be 2.x branch at all?
yes
Maybe it would be better to build 3.1 from svn?
non available in 3.x and glassfish 3 require hk2 http://hk2.java.net/ for build
3. Is http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/toplink/jpa/index.html
really proper url for this project?
Software from that link is licensed differently... maybe you should replace
it with http://glassfish.java.net/?
corrected
=== Final Notes ===
1. http://download.java.net/ redirects to http://dlc.sun.com.edgesuite.net/ so
use newer url, please.
corrected
Spec URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-toplink-essentials/3/glassfish-toplink-essentials.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-toplink-essentials/3/glassfish-toplink-essentials-2.0.46-3.fc16.src.rpm
- moved in files in %%{_javadir}
- fixed Url and source0 url
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808258] Review Request: python-sh - Python module to simplify calling shell commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808258 --- Comment #13 from Andy Grover --- Hi Ralph, thanks to you and amoffat, upstream released an updated tarball that should be 100% "sh" with no "pbs". Updated .spec and srpms: spec: http://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/python-sh.spec srpm: http://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/python-sh-0.107-1.fc17.src.rpm Tested, seems to work fine, please 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 824083] Review Request: nyancat - A terminal Nyan Cat renderer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824083 Ricky Elrod changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 836368] New: Review Request: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836368 Bug ID: 836368 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: rubygem-bicho - Library to access Bugzilla Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dpie...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-bicho-0.0.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Library to access Bugzilla. Fedora Account System Username: mcpierce -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835432] Review Request: python-pycxx - Write Python extensions in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835432
--- Comment #19 from John Morris ---
Hi fellas,
New package:
http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/python-pycxx.spec
http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/python-pycxx-6.2.4-1.fc16.src.rpm
Bunch of changes:
- Python 3 package, 'python3-pycxx-devel', builds if '--with=python3'
specified
- Header files installed into /usr/include/CXX.
- Dedupes haders shared by python 2 and 3; but more important,
- One python-version-independent pkg-config .pc file:
'pkg-config --variable=includedir PyCXX' instead of '... Py3CXX' or
similar.
- A precedent is numpy
- If this is unacceptable, they can be moved back to
/usr/include/python/CXX, and the pkg-config files split into
'Py2CXX.pc' and 'Py3CXX.pc' or something equivalent
- Source files installed into /usr/src/CXX
- Complies with FHS, though not much written about it
- A precedent is dwm-user, which does very nearly the same thing
- If this is unacceptable, they can be moved into the headers directory
- Lots of changes to setup.py; I hope these can be accepted upstream:
- New patch merges old patch that converts tabs to spaces and fixes
indentation
- Headers and sources previously omitted are now installed by setup.py
instead of through hackage in specfile (install_headers extended to
handle subdirs)
- Install only python2 or python3 code, as appropriate
I'll address some of the comments here.
(In reply to comment #16)
> - imho, there's no need for obsoletes, there's no version to obsolete.
'Obsoletes' tags removed. I changed the package name from the old version in
the Zultron repo, but I now see this is unnecessary. BTW, I added the version
to Obsoletes to silence a fedora-review warning.
> - buildrequires: python-devel should be python2-devel, or something like:
> BuildRequires: python2-devel
> %if 0%{?with_python3}
> BuildRequires: python3-devel
> %endif # if with_python3
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Done.
> - you should link your patches to tickets upstream, esp. you should put a
> comment to those patches, what they do or why they are required.
Done.
> - your package python-%{modname} doesn't have %files:, it contains
> [mrunge@mrungexp result]$ rpm -qlp python-pycxx-6.2.4-0.fc18.src.rpm
> pycxx-6.2.4.tar.gz
> python-pycxx-6.2.4-change-include-paths.patch
> python-pycxx-6.2.4-fix-indentation.patch
> python-pycxx.spec
Correct. There's no regular package, only a -devel package. Other packages
linking this code don't require any extra library files or config files.
> - there's python3 support built in, so you should package that too.
Done. 'rpmbuild -ba python-pycxx.spec --with=python3' builds a
python3-pycxx-devel package.
> - compiler flags are not required for noarch packages, so either noarch, or
> compiler flags...
Whoops, an artifact of the specfile I stole. Removed.
(In reply to comment #17)
> [...]
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > - Own /usr/share/python2.7/
>
> I'm concerned about this one. I'm not sure anything but python should own a
> directly like that. Perhaps /usr/src was a good idea?
Fixed, see above. Agreed, /usr/src seems best, and /usr/share/python2.7 is
abominal.
Whew! Y'all are tough! :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836362] New: Review Request: rubygem-cinch - An IRC Bot Building Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836362 Bug ID: 836362 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: rubygem-cinch - An IRC Bot Building Framework Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dpie...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-cinch.spec SRPM URL: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-cinch-2.0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: A simple, friendly DSL for creating IRC bots. Fedora Account System Username: mcpierce -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835089] Review Request: Script-Tools - A script framework based on bash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835089 --- Comment #11 from Simon A. Erat --- Reviewing foreign package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835099 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #6 from Björn Persson --- Oh, and the recommended suffix for a documentation subpackage is "-doc", without an S. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Björn Persson ---
Sorry Peter if I stole your review. Since I had been working on Templates
Parser I figured I should submit the notes I had.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Should the documentation go into a separate subpackage? %name-docs?
You may choose to make a subpackage if you consider the documentation to be "a
lot" as the Packaging Guidelines say, or "large" as the Review Guidelines put
it. (It's a bit funny that the Review Guidelines have it as a MUST item that
large documentation must be in a subpackage, but leave it entirely to the
packager to define "large".)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
Note that there is a risk that developers who install templates_parser-devel
won't notice that templates_parser-doc exists.
By the way, it may be a good idea to install the .info file in %{_infodir},
where the info command will presumably find it, but that's not something I'm
familiar with.
> > · _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.
It will be somewhere else in Fedora 18. So far /usr/lib/gnat has been the only
place where Gnatmake would look for project files. In GCC 4.7 it also looks in
/usr/share/gpr, which is a better place for architecture-independent files.
GPRbuild also knows to look in /usr/share/gpr, so I changed _GNAT_project_dir
in Rawhide.
> Didn't really know if soname is necessary or not. In #fedora-devel nobody
> could give me a definite answer.
The way I read the guidelines it's not a blocker if there is no soname: "When a
shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the packager
should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library file.
However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users to
run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package."
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages) That means
that you can package the library without a soname, but then the unversioned
name must be present in %{_libdir}, and not only in the devel subpackage. The
problem with the current package is that the library is hidden in a
subdirectory and the link in %{_libdir} doesn't have the name that the loader
will look for unless the devel subpackage is installed.
If you add a soname, then the filename in %{_libdir} shall match the soname,
and the unversioned link goes in the devel subpackage.
> 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?
I chose that format so that the soname will change in every release. Libgnat
for example uses that format. If you put the version after ".so", then it will
be assumed that minor releases are guaranteed to be ABI-compatible, and that
the ABI changes only in major releases, so the soname will become
"libtemplates_parser.so.11". The upstream developers make no such guarantees.
(If they did, the way to communicate it would be to include such a soname.)
(In reply to comment #4)
> This library can be compiled for static linking. Should this be added, too?
Only if there is a compelling reason, which I don't think there is.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 --- Comment #6 from Simon A. Erat --- rpm2cpio kde-base-artwork-4.8.90-1.fc17.src.rpm | cpio -idmv Review Update & Additions: -- ? Could not check for forbidden .la libtool archives: Invalid Source0 + No forbidden .la libtool found ? Could not verify packaged files: Invalid Source0 + All files using UTF-8 naming ? No system lib files found: Invalid Source0 + No lib files shipped - Missing Desktop Icon, or comment why none available + Since its a splashscreen, no icon required. Remaining Blockers: --- - Source0 - Build fails (See below) yum list installed cmake Installierte Pakete cmake.i686 2.8.8-4.fc17 @updates CMake Error: CMake was unable to find a build program corresponding to "Unix Makefiles". CMAKE_MAKE_PROGRAM is not set. You probably need to select a different build tool. CMake Error: Error required internal CMake variable not set, cmake may be not be built correctly. Missing variable is: CMAKE_C_COMPILER_ENV_VAR CMake Error: Error required internal CMake variable not set, cmake may be not be built correctly. Missing variable is: CMAKE_C_COMPILER CMake Error: Could not find cmake module file:/home/simon/rpmbuild/BUILD/kde-base-artwork-4.8.90/noarch-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles/CMakeCCompiler.cmake CMake Error: Error required internal CMake variable not set, cmake may be not be built correctly. Missing variable is: CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ENV_VAR CMake Error: Error required internal CMake variable not set, cmake may be not be built correctly. Missing variable is: CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER CMake Error: Could not find cmake module file:/home/simon/rpmbuild/BUILD/kde-base-artwork-4.8.90/noarch-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles/CMakeCXXCompiler.cmake CMake Error: CMAKE_C_COMPILER not set, after EnableLanguage CMake Error: CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER not set, after EnableLanguage CMake Warning (dev) in CMakeLists.txt: No cmake_minimum_required command is present. A line of code such as cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8) should be added at the top of the file. The version specified may be lower if you wish to support older CMake versions for this project. For more information run "cmake --help-policy CMP". This warning is for project developers. Use -Wno-dev to suppress it. -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! Fehler: Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9szNnH (%build) Fehler beim Bauen des RPM: Benutzer rdieter1 existiert nicht - benutze Root Gruppe rdieter1 existiert nicht - benutze Root Benutzer rdieter1 existiert nicht - benutze Root Gruppe rdieter1 existiert nicht - benutze Root Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9szNnH (%build) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832007] Review Request: mingw-webkitgtk3 - MinGW Windows GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832007 --- 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 832007] Review Request: mingw-webkitgtk3 - MinGW Windows GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832007 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember --- Thanks for the review, Paweł! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-webkitgtk3 Short Description: MinGW Windows GTK+ Web content engine library Owners: kalev pfor Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832007] Review Request: mingw-webkitgtk3 - MinGW Windows GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832007 Paweł Forysiuk changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tuxa...@o2.pl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832007] Review Request: mingw-webkitgtk3 - MinGW Windows GTK+ Web content engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832007
Paweł Forysiuk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tuxa...@o2.pl
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Paweł Forysiuk ---
Fedora review of mingw-webkitgtk3-1.8.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 2012-06-28
[+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces
rpmlint mingw-webkitgtk3.spec mingw-webkitgtk3-1.8.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
mingw32-webkitgtk3-debuginfo-1.8.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
mingw32-webkitgtk3-1.8.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
mingw64-webkitgtk3-debuginfo-1.8.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
mingw64-webkitgtk3-1.8.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
mingw-webkitgtk3.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
mingw32-webkitgtk3-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-webkitgtk3-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
Warnings from rpmlint output are a false positive.
[+] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines (For MinGW
packages).
[+] The spec file name match the base package %{name}
[+] Package is licensed with Fedora approved license.
[+] License filed in package matches actual license.
[+] Other included licenses are packaged in %doc
[+] Spec file is written in American English
[+] Spec file is legible
[+] Source used to build matches the upstream source
sha1sum webkit-1.8.1.tar.xz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/webkit-1.8.1.tar.xz
d26543baace03c31aa3de82bc24f06f14c6b3052 webkit-1.8.1.tar.xz
d26543baace03c31aa3de82bc24f06f14c6b3052
/home/pawel/rpmbuild/SOURCES/webkit-1.8.1.tar.xz
[+] Package compiles and builds successfully
[+] Locales are handled properly
[+] Package does not bundle system libraries
[+] Package owns all directories it creates
[+] Permissions are properly set
[+] All filenames are valid UTF-8
Package works very nice when used with cross-compiled Midori browser
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 --- Comment #5 from Simon A. Erat --- Ok, please fix it and re-upload specfile and source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835099] Review Request: kde-base-artwork - KDE Base Artwork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835099 --- Comment #4 from Simon A. Erat --- First time doing a review, experienced Reviewer: please review the rebiew. rpmlint kde-base-artwork-4.8.90-1.fc17.src.rpm kde-base-artwork.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US kde-base-artwork.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.8.90/src/kde-base-artwork-4.8.90.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --> Accessing its ftp directory, an error 601 appears... <-- Review Rapport: + Naming + Specfile + Spec is US-English - Source0 + Lisence accepted + COPYING shipped + Lisence is in %doc - Review file does not match upstream, due to previous errors, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ? Build could not be tested: Invalid Source0 ? No system lib files found: Invalid Source0 + Package is not relocatable + Own its directories + No double entries in %files + No executable files to set permission ? Could not check for forbidden .la libtool archives: Invalid Source0 - Missing Desktop Icon, or comment why none available + Proper filesystem ownership ? Could not verify packaged files: Invalid Source0 Hope this is an acceptable 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 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- URL typo, *should* have "unstable" instead of "stable" in there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Simon A. Erat --- First time doing a review, experienced Reviewer: please review the rebiew. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
[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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
