[Bug 760645] Review Request: ergo - A quantum chemistry program for large-scale self-consistent field calculations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760645 --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts --- Don't see why know. Fabien can always co-maintain if he wishes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760645] Review Request: ergo - A quantum chemistry program for large-scale self-consistent field calculations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760645 --- Comment #16 from Jussi Lehtola --- No. If no-one disagrees, I'll close this bug and open one with my own spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819687] Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ti...@math.uh.edu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts --- I'll assume that because you don't clean the buildroot in %install that you don't intend to submit this for EL5. Given that, here's a review: The first line of the spec is pointless regardless of what releases you intend to package for. The python_sitelib define at the top is unnecessary; all Fedora and EL6 already have this. BuildRoot: is unnecessary, as is the %clean section. The Summary: and %description are rather deficient; neither really tells me much about the package. Unfortunately these appear to come from upstream. I'll suggest these: Summary: A python interface to the Request Tracker API %description A Python module providing access to the Best Practical Request Tracker (RT) REST interface. Not the best, I guess, but better than what's there. The package is out of date; the current version appears to be 0.2.4. I'll go ahead and take this for review, but you should update to the current version before I get any further into it. Unless, of course, you have a reason for not updating to the current version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772766] Review Request: stylus-toolbox - A printer utility for Epson Stylus® inkjet printers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772766 --- Comment #3 from Mario Santagiuliana --- Yes, it is an old project but when I create the package it works for me on a fedora 16. Here the features from the upstream website: Stylus Toolbox supports all of the functions of escputil, including: Displaying ink levels Printing a nozzle test Cleaning the print nozzles Performing head alignment Identifying the model name Additionally, Stylus Toolbox also provides: A tray icon for displaying the model name and ink levels A context menu for the tray icon, with access to all options An optional toolbox showing the same information as the tray icon with a toolbar Automatic "Just Works" configuration of parameters such as the raw printer device through integration with HAL/DBus and CUPS Automatic "Just Works" configuration for and support of printers attached to remote CUPS servers over an SSH connection SSH support for remote printers works supports both password and key-based authentication, including support for 'remembering' authentication credentials (username/password) Convient access to the printer settings via a 'Properties' menu pick and toolbar icon All settings are stored in an automatically-generated plain-text, yet fully editable configuration file So it is not similar to system-config-printer. I see it like a GUI to escputil. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837396] Review Request: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837396 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- jbossws-cxf-4.0.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbossws-cxf-4.0.2-1.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 837396] Review Request: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837396 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 833511] Review Request: dnf - A Yum fork on top of libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833511 --- Comment #11 from Ales Kozumplik --- (In reply to comment #10) > I looking at the license status, most files are GPLv2+, > however I find some other stuff too: > > in dnf/ subdir : > > yum/sqlutils.py : GPLv2 > yum/misc.py : unknown > yum/parser.py : unknown > rpmUtils/oldUtils.py : unknown > rpmUtils/transaction.py : GPL > rpmUtils/arch.py : > rpmUtils/__init__.py : unknown > rpmUtils/tests/updates-test.py : unknown > > bin/dnf : unknown > > Could you please have a look at this issue? With the exception of bin/dnf where I will yet add the license information, these files are all taken over from yum which has been licensed as GPLv2+ since 2008. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830812] Review Request: paulstretch - an audio time stretching utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830812 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones --- rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/paulstretch-2.2.2-2.fc17.src.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/paulstretch-2.2.2-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/paulstretch-debuginfo-2.2.2-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm paulstretch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary paulstretch 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Thanks for the patch! No upstream tracker I'm afraid SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/paulstretch-2.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/paulstretch.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Orcan Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Component|0x |Package Review Assignee|oget.fed...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834239] Review Request: monobristol - frontend for britsol in mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239 Orcan Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|dw...@infradead.org |oget.fed...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834239] Review Request: monobristol - frontend for britsol in mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239 Orcan Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org Component|Package Review |0x Assignee|oget.fed...@gmail.com |dw...@infradead.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #15 from Orcan Ogetbil --- I think this is good to go. One little request: Could you append X-Synthesis;X-Jack; to the Categories entry in the .desktop file? This will allow monobristol to show up in the Multimedia->Creation->DigitalProcessing and Jack submenus inside the Applications menu, once you have the "multimedia-menus" package installed. Thanks! -- This package (monobristol) is APPROVED by oget -- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837213] Review Request: konkretcmpi - Tool for rapid CMPI providers development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837213 Radek Novacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Radek Novacek --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: konkretcmpi Short Description: Tool for rapid CMPI providers development Owners: rnovacek 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 819134] Review Request: python-okaara - python command line user interface development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts --- Reading things more closely, I was wrong about the need to conditionalize that puthon_sitelib macro on EL5. The guidelines show a (complex) conditional for that, but the way the macro is defined, it only kicks in if it's not already defined so everything is fine. Those guidelines really need a cleanup. Still don't know if the python(abi) thing gets automatically done on 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 768894] Review Request: haven - Next Generation Backup System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768894 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts --- So, over three months later, was there ever any progress 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 798438] Review Request: uthash-devel - Hash table and linked list for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798438 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts --- It's been a few months; any response to the above commentary? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
Jason Tibbitts changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ti...@math.uh.edu
--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ---
Some notes:
Relocatable packages aren't permitted in Fedora anyway.
The versioning doesn't meet the guidelines; there are only very limited
circumstances where something is permitted after the dist tag. If your package
is a prerelease of what will eventually be called 0.6.3, it should be
0.6.3-0.4.alpha1%{?dist}. Note that the release is less than 1 because it's a
prerelease version, and when 0.6.3 is released you can just use
0.6.3-1%{?dist}.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
You really must untar your source in %prep, not in %install.
If you do not intend to support RHEL5, you do not need BuildRoot, %clean or the
first line of %install. Nothing needs the %defattr line in %files.
rpmlint gives a really large number of non-executable script warnings, and some
really odd stuff like
script-tools.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/script-tools/scripts/simon /home/simon/bin/simon-scripts
You... can't refer to your home directory in an rpm spec file which will be
built and installed on systemd that don't have your home directory.
The last changelog entry doesn't match the package version, and your changelog
entries don't follow one of the formats specified in the packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
I can't figure out how users are supposed to run any of these scripts as
nothing gets installed anywhere in the path.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795696] Review Request: sc - A script collection to go from minimal install to GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795696 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts --- Spec and srpm links above are invalid. Please clear the whiteboard field above if providing a package which can be reviewed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795451] Review Request: basex - XML database and XPath/XQuery processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795451 Jason Tibbitts 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 761063] Review Request: cover_grabber - Download album cover art
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761063 --- Comment #12 from Jayson Vaughn --- My apologies. I was actually working on a new package as much has changed. I will also make sure to use my fedorapeople space next time. Thanks for the suggestions and taking the time to review this ticket. I will clear the whiteboard when it's ready. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 740160] Review Request: discount - An implementation of the Markdown language in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=740160 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts --- SRPM link above is invalid. The spec itself looks pretty clean. You can remove the first line of %install as it is unnecessary. Not having the srpm, I have to ask instead of looking: is the configure.sh file some kind of autoconf-generated configure script? If so, why not use the %configure macro and get the proper compiler flags set up for free? If not, why is there a build dependency on autoconf? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 805332] Review Request: pyp - Python-centric command line text manipulation tool similar to awk and sed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805332 --- Comment #5 from Mark McKinstry --- I've fixed the URL and Source0. Although its just one file, I now check it out from svn so its clear which version is being used. spec: http://mmckinst.fedorapeople.org/packages/pyp/pyp.spec srpm: http://mmckinst.fedorapeople.org/packages/pyp/pyp-2.12-20120402.1.fc16.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806040] Review Request: pyproj - a python module that performs cartographic transformations and geodetic computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806040 --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts --- I wish I could answer your question above but unfortunately I've no idea at all. However, a couple of comments: Your package does not meant the guidelines for snapshot versions. Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages I don't know if your snapshot is pre- or post-release, but regardless, it must include at least the snapshot date and "svn". If you wish to include the subversion revieson number, you may. The usual scheme for a post-release snapshot would be 1.9.2-4.20120621svn298. When I see TODO and such over a spec I have to wonder if it's ready for review. If you have questions about what you should do, feel free to ask them on an appropriate mailing list. Then make your changes and present the spec that you'd like reviewed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836840] Review Request: gtkradiant - level design program for videogames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836840 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts --- A couple of comments: Using dropbox for your package hosting makes it difficult to get things. For example, I don't get a valid source rpm when I do wget https://www.dropbox.com/s/tv04tx692r6sa44/gtkradiant-1.6.3-2.fc16.src.rpm Not sure how I'm supposed to download the package to my build host. How on earth is your package noarch yet it requires a compiler? And it requires all of those C headers and libraries yet the spec has an empty %build section. I'm going to assume there's some C or C++ source that needs to be compiled, but I can't figure out where that happens. Without being able to download the source package I can't say much more, but something looks pretty odd. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771480] Review Request: trident - A Java animation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771480 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||837450 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837450] Review Request: android - Google Android Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837450 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||771480 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771480] Review Request: trident - A Java animation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771480 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to comment #2) > I could need some help. If I compile trident, it says: "[javac] > /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/trident-1.3/src/org/pushingpixels/trident/ > android/AndroidPropertyInterpolators.java:37: package android.graphics does > not exist > [javac] import android.graphics.*; > [javac] ^" > > Is there an package available, with this content? I couldn't find anything > similar. > > Greetings > Sven hi see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837450 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837450] Review Request: android - Google Android Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837450 gil cattaneo 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 837446] Review Request: android-opengl-api - Google Android Java ME Library (Khronos)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837446 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||837450 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837450] Review Request: android - Google Android Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837450 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||837446 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819687] Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 --- Comment #6 from Tomas Dabašinskas --- Package updated: Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/T0MASD/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.0-2.el6.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 837450] New: Review Request: android - Google Android Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837450 Bug ID: 837450 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: android - Google Android Library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-4.0.1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: A library jar that provides APIs for Applications written for the Google Android Platform. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837396] Review Request: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837396 --- Comment #3 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 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ---
OK, let me take a quick look and make more specific comments.
This does build fine; I get a few rpmlint complaints:
apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/var/www/apf-1.15/README_en.txt
apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /var/www/apf-1.15/lgpl-3.0.txt
apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /var/www/apf-1.15/gpl-3.0.txt
apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/var/www/apf-1.15/README_de.txt
These all need to be cleaned up to remove DOS line endings.
Pretty much everything in this package is installed in the wrong place. You
cannot install into /var/www. This is discussed explicitly in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Web_Applications
/usr/share/apf (not versioned) or even a less generic
/usr/share/adventure-framework would be a more reasonable place, I'd think.
BuildRoot, the first line of %install, the entire %clean section and the
%defattr line in %files are completely unnecessary in Fedora and should be
removed.
You don't need an empty %build section at all.
Packages should not depend on the base php package. There's a draft about this
here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP which should make its
way into the actual guideline relatively soon. Since this does include an
apache conf file, depending on httpd is OK.
Why does this package require a local mysql server? Wouldn't it work with a
remote server?
Macro forms of basic comments like %{__rm} should not be used. Just use "rm"
instead; it's a whole lot less typing, and we're not going to remove rm from
the path pretty much ever.
You call dos2unix without having any dependency on it. I have no idea why it
doesn't fail; maybe the find calls aren't working as you expect.
It's pretty suboptimal to do selinux setup in scriptlets. It would be better,
once a proper location for the files is chosen, to get the base selinux package
to include the proper file contexts. The selinux folks are very responsive.
You should use a proper systemd call to restart httpd, and include the proper
dependencies for it, if indeed you really feel like doing that. Personally I
don't think that installing this package should mess with a running httpd, and
the other webapps I checked don't do that.
There's no need at all to do this:
%dir %{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/
%{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/*
Instead, just use one line:
%{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/
You shoud put the README files somewhere under docdir instead of spreading
through all through the application directory, unless there's some specific
reason they need to be where they are.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831705] Review Request: jj - A FIFO and file-system based Jabber/XMPP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831705 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan --- Looks good, Petr! 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 836756] Review Request: targetd - Service to make storage remotely configurable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836756 --- Comment #2 from Andy Grover --- Hello, updated spec based on comments. I built new targetcli rpm (2.0rc1.fb14-2) for rawhide that claims /etc/target. Please take a look here and let me know if I missed anything, thanks! Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/targetd.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/targetd-0.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828626] Review Request: saslwrapper - Ruby and Python wrappers for the Cyrus SASL library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828626 --- Comment #2 from Dan Callaghan --- I don't think there are any missing BuildRequires because this builds fine in Koji for f16 and f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4217035 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4217042 Kalpa, can you please post some details about the build failure you saw, so we can figure out what's going wrong? Take a look in build.log and root.log in the mock buildroot. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837446] Review Request: android-opengl-api - Google Android Java ME Library (Khronos)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837446 gil cattaneo 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 837446] New: Review Request: android-opengl-api - Google Android Java ME Library (Khronos)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837446 Bug ID: 837446 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: android-opengl-api - Google Android Java ME Library (Khronos) Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-opengl-api.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-opengl-api-1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The Android implementation of Khronos OpenGL Spec for the Google Android SDK. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819134] Review Request: python-okaara - python command line user interface development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts --- The whole bit is this: X final provides and requires are sane: python-okaara = 1.0.19-1.fc18 = X python >= 2.4 python(abi) = 2.7 indicating that the needless "python >= 2.4" dependency is the issue 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 809086] Review Request: mp3val - Tool for Validating and Fixing MPEG Audio Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809086 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts --- OK, adding this to the legal blocker. Honestly I don't think there's any real problem here but we try to be very careful with this kind of thing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819134] Review Request: python-okaara - python command line user interface development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 --- Comment #13 from Jay Dobies --- I realized that too, I only requested Fedora branches because I didn't think our need for RHEL5 mattered for this process. Now I know :) I will check on the sitelib macro and, at worst case, add a RHEL5 condition for it. I'll also add in the unit tests. The only other one I'm unsure of is: X final provides and requires are sane: python-okaara = 1.0.19-1.fc18 I checked the guidelines and I see a section about filtering out the auto-generated provides, but I'm not sure what's wrong with how it's set up today. Can you give me a little more detail on that issue? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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: wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth ---
Even though you are not packaging a traditional MinGW package, you are using
the MinGW toolkit to build it so I feel it should try to follow the MinGW
packaging guidelines.
$ md5sum Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
$ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wine-mono.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.noarch.rpm
wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-COPYING.LIB
wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.GPL
wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.LGPL
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[/] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[!] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[!] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[!] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[/] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[/] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[/] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[/] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[/] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[/] .def files are not bundled
[/] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[/] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[/] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[/] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning should be reported upstream.
Please check the items I marked that need looking into before I pass the
review:
-%?mingw_package_header should be %{?mingw_package_header}
-The BRs for the filesystem packages are missing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770765] Review Request: python3-modgrammar - Modular grammar-parsing engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770765 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts --- Did anything ever happen here? I note that there's been no comment from the original submitter and the spec does have a few problems. I'm not sure if it's worth spending the time doing a proper review if Pavel's no longer interested in submitting this. However, I did see that he was sponsored at some point, so I'll clear out the NEEDSPONSOR status. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819134] Review Request: python-okaara - python command line user interface development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts --- No, they don't hurt anything; they're just useless in Fedora. You only requested fedora branches so I made the easy assumption that the stuff wasn't necessary. Personally I can't stand the stone-age complexity that supporting ancient stuff like EL5 requires, don't want it in any of my packages and avoid reviewing things that include it, but it's your package and I'm already committed. You still need to conditionalize at least the python_sitelib macro to kick in only on EL5 as documented in the python packaging guidelines. I thought that the explicit python dependency was unnecessary even on EL5 (it's not mentioned anywhere in the python guidelines) but I have no real way of knowing since I only use Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760645] Review Request: ergo - A quantum chemistry program for large-scale self-consistent field calculations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760645 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts --- Did anything ever happen 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 819134] Review Request: python-okaara - python command line user interface development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 --- Comment #11 from Jay Dobies --- Question about how to handle the RHEL5 pieces. This project is in use by Red Hat and needs to be built for RHEL5 (this also explains the >= 2.4 line). Is the proper way to handle this to leave these items in the spec since (I believe) they aren't harming anything in Fedora or do I have to create a separate spec for RHEL5 only builds? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771480] Review Request: trident - A Java animation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771480 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts --- I've alerted the Java SIG folks to these packages, but really, there's nothing to review here. And since this blocks the other packages you submitted, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. Your own bugzilla ticket, with nobody but you watching it, is very far from a good place to ask questions like this. Maybe the #fedora-java channel on IRC, or the java-devel mailing list would be more appropriate. I think if nothing that's reviewable appears here soon, I'll go ahead and mark these tickets unreviewable or just close them entirely. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837432] New: Review Request: python-pkgwat-api - Python API for querying the fedora packages webapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837432
Bug ID: 837432
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Summary: Review Request: python-pkgwat-api - Python API for
querying the fedora packages webapp
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-pkgwat-api.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-pkgwat-api-0.3-2.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Python API for pkgwat
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pkgwat.cli
Fedora Account System Username: ralph
rpmlint output:
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS}/python-pkgwat-api*
python-pkgwat-api.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webapp -> web app,
web-app, weapon
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/*.rpm
python3-python-pkgwat-api.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webapp ->
web app, web-app, weapon
python-pkgwat-api.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webapp -> web app,
web-app, weapon
python-pkgwat-api.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) webapp -> web app,
web-app, weapon
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
koji build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4216899
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754246] Review Request: TV-Browser - A TV Browsing application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754246 Jason Tibbitts 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 770721] Review Request: substance - Swing look-and-feel library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770721 Jason Tibbitts 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 830418] Review Request: python-django-avatar - A reusable django application for handling user avatars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830418
Matthias Runge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/avatar/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/django.mo
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-django-avatar-2.0a1-1.20120609git097ed8.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python-django-avatar-2.0a1-1.20120609git097ed8.fc18.src.rpm
python-django-avatar.src:25: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 25,
tab: line 5)
python-django-avatar.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
python-django-avatar-2.0a1.20120609git097ed8.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Package has no sources or they are generated by developer
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for 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 preser
[Bug 833511] Review Request: dnf - A Yum fork on top of libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833511 --- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten --- I looking at the license status, most files are GPLv2+, however I find some other stuff too: in dnf/ subdir : yum/sqlutils.py : GPLv2 yum/misc.py : unknown yum/parser.py : unknown rpmUtils/oldUtils.py : unknown rpmUtils/transaction.py : GPL rpmUtils/arch.py : rpmUtils/__init__.py : unknown rpmUtils/tests/updates-test.py : unknown bin/dnf : unknown Could you please have a look at this issue? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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: wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@cchtml.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@cchtml.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Michael Cronenworth --- Taking 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 819670] Review Request: mingw-llvm - MinGW LLVM libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819670
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Michael Cronenworth ---
$ md5sum Downloads/llvm-3.0.tar.gz
a8e5f5f1c1adebae7b4a654c376a6005 Downloads/llvm-3.0.tar.gz
$ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/llvm-3.0.tar.gz
a8e5f5f1c1adebae7b4a654c376a6005 rpmbuild/SOURCES/llvm-3.0.tar.gz
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/mingw-llvm.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint Downloads/mingw-llvm-3.0-3.fc17.src.rpm
mingw-llvm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-llvm-3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
mingw32-llvm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i686-w64-mingw32-llvm-config
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint
/home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-llvm-static-3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
mingw32-llvm-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpm -qp --requires
/home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-llvm-3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/perl
mingw32(advapi32.dll)
mingw32(imagehlp.dll)
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll)
mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll)
mingw32(llvm-3.0.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(psapi.dll)
mingw32(shell32.dll)
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem >= 83
perl >= 0:5.006
perl(Cwd)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm -qp --provides
/home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-llvm-3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
mingw32(bugpointpasses.dll)
mingw32(llvm-3.0.dll)
mingw32(lto.dll)
mingw32-llvm = 3.0-3.fc17
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[/] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[/] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[/] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[/] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[+] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The description and man page rpmlint warnings can be ignored.
The no-documentation rpmlint warnings in the -static subpackage can be ignored
as the documentation is already part of the regular mingw32 package.
However, I could not build your package on my x86_64 F17 system at first. The
configure steps succeed but building fails during the make step:
checking tool compatibility... configure: error: g++|clang++|icc required but
not found
make[1]: Entering directory
`/home/michael/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0.src/build_win32/BuildTools'
make[1]: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/home/michael/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0.src/build_win32/BuildTools'
make: *** [cross-compile-build-tools] Error 1
It seems when it runs make it is throwing out all of the MinGW environment
variables and running configure again. I do not have g++ installed on the
system I am reviewing on. After installing it (as a koji buildroot would have
it) building succeeded. You might ask upstream why the "make" process wants
native compilers when we specified a cross-compiler (MinGW) during configure.
In any case it seems to build Windows binaries.
The package mingw-llvm is APPROVED by mooninite
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819134] Review Request: python-okaara - python command line user interface development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts --- OK, I'll do a full review and assign it back to jortel when I'm done so he gets the credit. Given that I know you're only packaging this for f16 and up, I'll review based on that. Unfortunately the previous review missed several things, so I have some more comments. The python_sitelib macro definition is unnecessary in Fedora (only EL5 needs it) BuildRoot is unnecessary in Fedora, as is the first line of %install, the entire %clean section and the %defattr line in %files. (Only EL5 needs the first three; the latter is completely unnecessary.) The Requires: python >= 2.4 line is unnecessary and somewhat misleading to boot. RPM will add a proper python(abi) dependency, and a package built for f17 or rawhide won't install on something with only python 2.4 anyway. Is your personal fedoraprople.org site the proper source for the tarball? It appears that you are the upstream but it seems odd. There's some kind of test available. Is it possible to run it in a %check section? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: bfba715817a7806b1f3ad62e0df0321de72aa0e549853d039eda951bfc2b python-okaara-1.0.19.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: python-okaara = 1.0.19-1.fc18 = X python >= 2.4 python(abi) = 2.7 ? %check is not present but there appears to be some sort of test suite. * no bundled libraries. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the 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 837396] Review Request: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837396 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jbossws-cxf Short Description: JBoss Web Services CXF stack 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 836163] Review Request: compton - Compositor for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836163 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann --- Thanks for your hints. Additionally, I've used some tips from a user of fedoraforum.de [1], regarding the version numbering. License: I've inherited the license declaration and some other things from the xcompmgr package, now changed to BSD according to your explanation. New files: Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/compton.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/compton-0-0.1.20120603gitd52f7a0.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4216815 [1] http://fedoraforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=22639&p=126443#p126439 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837396] Review Request: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837396
Patryk Obara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Patryk Obara ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint jbossws-cxf-4.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
jbossws-cxf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss
jbossws-cxf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JBoss -> J Boss, Boss
jbossws-cxf.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossws HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jbossws-cxf.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %package
jbossws-cxf.src:34: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
jbossws-cxf.src:38: W: macro-in-comment %description
jbossws-cxf.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
jbossws-cxf.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{_javadocdir}
jbossws-cxf.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
jbossws-cxf.src:75: W: macro-in-comment %files
jbossws-cxf.src:76: W: macro-in-comment %{_javadocdir}
jbossws-cxf.src:76: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
$ rpmlint jbossws-cxf.spec
jbossws-cxf.spec:33: W: macro-in-comment %package
jbossws-cxf.spec:34: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
jbossws-cxf.spec:38: W: macro-in-comment %description
jbossws-cxf.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
jbossws-cxf.spec:68: W: macro-in-comment %{_javadocdir}
jbossws-cxf.spec:68: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
jbossws-cxf.spec:75: W: macro-in-comment %files
jbossws-cxf.spec:76: W: macro-in-comment %{_javadocdir}
jbossws-cxf.spec:76: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/jbossws-cxf-4.0.2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
jbossws-cxf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss
jbossws-cxf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JBoss -> J Boss,
Boss
jbossws-cxf.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossws HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jbossws-cxf.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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.
[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].
[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.
MD5SUM this package: 6c3fdbca04139a9d2d1fff3e8ba4231d
jbossws-cxf-4.0.2.GA-src.zip
MD5SUM upstream package: 6c3fdbca04139a9d2d1fff3e8ba4231d
jbossws-cxf-4.0.2.GA-src.zip
[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.
[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.
[-] 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
b
[Bug 823070] Review Request: php-symfony2-BrowserKit - Symfony2 BrowserKit Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823070 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-BrowserKit-2.0.15-2.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 823054] Review Request: php-symfony2-HttpFoundation - Symfony2 HttpFoundation Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823054 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-HttpFoundation-2.0.15-2.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 822182] Review Request: python-websockify - Python proxy for the websockets protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822182 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- python-websockify-0.1.0-5.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 831895] Review Request: cloc - Count Lines of Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831895 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- cloc-1.56-5.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 827730] Review Request: trac-code-comments-plugin - Trac plugin for code comments and sending them to tickets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827730 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- trac-code-comments-plugin-1.2.0-0.1.20120601gitb260714.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 823046] Review Request: php-symfony2-DependencyInjection - Symfony2 DependencyInjection Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823046 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-DependencyInjection-2.0.15-3.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 735160] Review Request: django-socialregistration - Django application enabling registration through a variety of APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735160 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(mrunge@matthias-r | |unge.de)| --- Comment #12 from Matthias Runge --- I'm very sorry that this took so long! It wasn't my intention to make this review longer than really necessary. All issues cleared, 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 834127] Review Request: VirtualGL - A toolkit for displaying OpenGL applications to thin clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski ---
Couple initial comments:
- Please update to 2.3.1
- Blank lines between changelog entries
- mesa-libGLU-devel will bring in libX11-devel, libXext-devel, and
mesa-libGL-devel, so no need to list them.
- The -devel Requires need %{?_isa} added
- You need to use %cmake28 in EPEL6
- I would change the cmake conditional to:
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6
BuildRequires: cmake28
%else
BuildRequires: cmake
%endif
and
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6
%cmake28 -DTJPEG_INCLUDE_DIR=%{_includedir} \
%else
%cmake -DTJPEG_INCLUDE_DIR=%{_includedir} \
%endif
As that is the exceptional condition.
- I recommend doing out of tree builds for cmake, but this isn't necessary.
rpmlint:
VirtualGL.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdlfaker.so libdlfaker.so
VirtualGL.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/librrfaker.so librrfaker.so
VirtualGL.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libgefaker.so libgefaker.so
These get preloaded via the vglrun wrapper script. I think they should go into
%{_libdir}/VirtualGL.
VirtualGL.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librrfaker.so
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
can be ignored
VirtualGL.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/VirtualGL-2.3/LGPL.txt
contact upstream and tell them to fix 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 819670] Review Request: mingw-llvm - MinGW LLVM libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819670 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@cchtml.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@cchtml.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Michael Cronenworth --- Taking 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 837396] Review Request: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837396 Patryk Obara changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 837396] New: Review Request: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837396 Bug ID: 837396 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: jbossws-cxf - JBoss Web Services CXF stack Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mgold...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbossws-cxf/4.0.2-1/jbossws-cxf.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbossws-cxf/4.0.2-1/jbossws-cxf-4.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: JBoss Web Services CXF integration stack Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4216629 Note for the reviewer: this package builds currently ONLY resources module, no java code. This resulted in no -javadocs subpackage, although it'll be added once we'll have Apache CXF (which is the main dependency for other modules) available in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834127] Review Request: VirtualGL - A toolkit for displaying OpenGL applications to thin clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||827167 Depends On|827167 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com Blocks|834127 | Depends On||834127 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 --- Comment #20 from MartinKG --- %changelog * Thu Jul 3 2012 Martin Gansser - 2.1-9 - removed rm in install section - removed systemd readme file - added link to upstream systemd patch SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-9.fc17/tntnet-2.1-9.fc17.src.rpm?a=nO4gxRikyFw Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-9.fc17/tntnet.spec?a=UEQ3_9_VG28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #11 from Jef Spaleta --- (In reply to comment #10) Yeah that's what I figured, but I didn't read anything in any of the obvious documentation about typical privledge operation. So just trying to be sure I was understanding what I was seeing. -jef -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836756] Review Request: targetd - Service to make storage remotely configurable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836756
Jiri Popelka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpope...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpope...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jiri Popelka ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
[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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
I guess the binary 'client' is just an example.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package 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 output is silent.
Only harmless warnings
targetd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iSCSI -> SCSI, i SCSI,
Isis
targetd.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
(bug #794777)
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : e19b0c4ac31bc1a8ad78065d984b3544
MD5SUM upstream package : e19b0c4ac31bc1a8ad78065d984b3544
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
Add
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/target
to %files
or if that directory is supposed to be owned by the targetcli package then
add it to that package's spec file
('rpm -qf /etc/target' tells me that 'file /etc/target is not owned by any
package').
[!]: SHOULD 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
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
I'm afraid you need to obey
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836840] Review Request: gtkradiant - level design program for videogames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836840 --- Comment #1 from Al --- I made some mistakes with the rpm's requires so I upload the new version of the spec here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4b29fbxjr8uemtn/gtkradiant.spec), the new SRPM here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/tv04tx692r6sa44/gtkradiant-1.6.3-2.fc16.src.rpm) and here the RPM for f16 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6kde0k5snzal2p/gtkradiant-1.6.3-2.fc16.noarch.rpm) Other related stuff available here (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rrgfwzc8bcjg74h/RxjiNIJ4_S). Repeat that I need a sponsor, thx for your patience. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823075] Review Request: php-symfony2-Security - Symfony2 Security Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823075 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Security-2.0.15-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823071] Review Request: php-symfony2-Form - Symfony2 Form Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823071 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Form-2.0.15-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter | --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts --- You can request a bundling exemption from the packaging committee if you like. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions has the details. Be sure to answer all of the relevant questions in as much detail as possible. We'll pretty much reject requests out of hand if they don't include enough detail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823066] Review Request: php-symfony2-Validator - Symfony2 Validator Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823066 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Validator-2.0.15-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823060] Review Request: php-symfony2-Routing - Symfony2 Routing Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823060 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-symfony2-Routing-2.0.15-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 833462] Review Request: hawkey - A Library providing simplified C and Python API to libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833462 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- hawkey-0.2.5-1.git042738b.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837313] Review Request: gssproxy - A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313 Andreas Schneider changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schneider --- I've reviewed the spec and the source RPM. All good :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837313] Review Request: gssproxy - A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313 Guenther Deschner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@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 837313] Review Request: gssproxy - A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313 Guenther Deschner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837213] Review Request: konkretcmpi - Tool for rapid CMPI providers development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837213
Jiri Popelka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpope...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpope...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jiri Popelka ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
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
[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
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
Only few harmless warnings:
konkretcmpi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary konkretreg
konkretcmpi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary konkret
konkretcmpi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/konkretcmpi-0.8.7/src/mof/REF_Yacc.cpp
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : cf8a2c31ea6244823ae498b1ec2384d9
MD5SUM upstream package : cf8a2c31ea6244823ae498b1ec2384d9
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Everything seems OK Radek.
You don't need to 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in %install,
but that's not a blocker so I consider this 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 798977] Review Request: GemRB - a portable Open Source implementation of BioWare's Infinity Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798977 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts --- This is neat stuff, and I'd love to have it in Fedora. However, because this doesn't do anything unless you go out and buy (or steal) a copy of an infinity engine game, it's unfortunately not really appropriate for Fedora. This is the same policy that keeps, say, Exult out of the distribution. (xu4, which I maintain, is right on the edge because U4 data can be freely downloaded at runtime.) I don't really agree with this policy but that's the way it is. If you disagree you're welcome to make a case on the devel list, of course; maybe enough folks will agree and the policy can be changed. I would suggest you look into rpmfusion for this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830398] Review Request: lancet - A build tool like Ant or Rake
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830398 --- Comment #9 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 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975
pcpa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from pcpa ---
The doc/guacamole-osk.dtd file is not required to be installed?
Otherwise, for a formal review, as you ask, only marked "-" (N/A) on SHOULD
Package functions as described due to not being able to properly test:
---%<---%<---%<---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/pcpa/rpmbuild/831975/guacamole-common-js-0.6.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : f3b1d88a09d7e20b56576f1e30607065
MD5SUM upstream package : f3b1d88a09d7e20b56576f1e30607065
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for 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 t
[Bug 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added CC||negativ...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|negativ...@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 828544] Review Request: megaglest-data - Mega Glest data files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828544 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added CC||negativ...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|negativ...@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 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975 --- Comment #5 from pcpa --- Ops, cut&paste fail :-) Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common-js.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-2.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 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975 --- Comment #4 from pcpa --- Editing entry because fedora-review fails due to other links above... Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common-js.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-commonjs-0.6.0-2.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 772766] Review Request: stylus-toolbox - A printer utility for Epson Stylus® inkjet printers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772766 Jiri Popelka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jpope...@redhat.com, ||twa...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Jiri Popelka --- Hi, I have a few general notes, none of them is spec file related: Looking at the Features it seems it doesn't provide much more then system-config-printer already does. The development doesn't seem to be much active, all changes in the CVS repository are 4-5 years old. What about the HAL requirement mentioned on http://stylus-toolbox.sourceforge.net ? HAL was removed in Fedora 16 (I think), does this tool work without it ? I personally don't think we need another system-config-printer-like tool with non-active upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975
--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni ---
Hello,
thanks for taking the review.
The package itself should not build, hence the empty %build section. According
to the java script packaging guidelines [1]; javascript "bundles" should not be
built and just parked into the filesystem.
Updated package with "rm -rf %{buildroot}" removed:
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common-js.spec
SRPM URL:
http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
Unfortunately there's no way to test it, I need these javascripts to build the
Guacamole main web application which is another package I'm struggling to build
with other draft guidelines. I kindly ask to do the formal review only.
Beside of this, the command you're looking for is "mvn-rpmbuild"; instead of
downloading stuff it checks if prerequisites are already in place through rpm
dependency [2],[3].
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaScript_libraries_packaging_guideline_draft
[2]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=guacamole-common.git;a=blob_plain;f=guacamole-common.spec;hb=HEAD
[3]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=guacamole-ext.git;a=blob_plain;f=guacamole-ext.spec;hb=HEAD
Thanks,
--Simone
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830398] Review Request: lancet - A build tool like Ant or Rake
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830398 Kushal Das changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(kushaldas@gmail.c |fedora-cvs? |om) | --- Comment #8 from Kushal Das --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lancet Short Description: A build tool like Ant or Rake Owners: kushal Branches: el6 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 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975
--- Comment #2 from pcpa ---
fedora-review, and my other checks, so it should remove the clean of buildroot
before %install:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: 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
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/pcpa/rpmbuild/831975/guacamole-common-js-0.6.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : f3b1d88a09d7e20b56576f1e30607065
MD5SUM upstream package : f3b1d88a09d7e20b56576f1e30607065
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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.
Issues:
[!]: 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
See: None
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
External plugins:
--
You are receiving this mail bec
[Bug 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from pcpa --- How do I test it? Could it be (somehow) built as specified in the README file, using mvn? E.g. I tested and it appears to build, but need more integration with maven in the distro to not download anything... $ mvn package /usr/lib/jvm/java [INFO] Scanning for projects... [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] Building guacamole-common-js 0.6.0 [INFO] Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/2.2-beta-5/maven-assembly-plugin-2.2-beta-5.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/2.2-beta-5/maven-assembly-plugin-2.2-beta-5.pom (15 KB at 23.9 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-plugins/16/maven-plugins-16.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-plugins/16/maven-plugins-16.pom (13 KB at 43.8 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-parent/15/maven-parent-15.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-parent/15/maven-parent-15.pom (24 KB at 56.5 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/6/apache-6.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/6/apache-6.pom (13 KB at 42.5 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/2.2-beta-5/maven-assembly-plugin-2.2-beta-5.jar Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/2.2-beta-5/maven-assembly-plugin-2.2-beta-5.jar (204 KB at 182.1 KB/sec) [INFO] [INFO] --- maven-assembly-plugin:2.2-beta-5:attached (make-zip) @ guacamole-common-js --- Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/shared/maven-common-artifact-filters/1.1/maven-common-artifact-filters-1.1.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/shared/maven-common-artifact-filters/1.1/maven-common-artifact-filters-1.1.pom (3 KB at 9.1 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/shared/maven-shared-components/10/maven-shared-components-10.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/shared/maven-shared-components/10/maven-shared-components-10.pom (9 KB at 28.8 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-parent/9/maven-parent-9.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-parent/9/maven-parent-9.pom (33 KB at 110.2 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/4/apache-4.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/4/apache-4.pom (5 KB at 14.8 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-artifact/2.0.8/maven-artifact-2.0.8.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-artifact/2.0.8/maven-artifact-2.0.8.pom (2 KB at 5.3 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven/2.0.8/maven-2.0.8.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven/2.0.8/maven-2.0.8.pom (12 KB at 41.6 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-parent/6/maven-parent-6.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/maven-parent/6/maven-parent-6.pom (20 KB at 68.2 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/codehaus/plexus/plexus-utils/1.4.6/plexus-utils-1.4.6.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/codehaus/plexus/plexus-utils/1.4.6/plexus-utils-1.4.6.pom (3 KB at 7.8 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/codehaus/plexus/plexus/1.0.11/plexus-1.0.11.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/codehaus/plexus/plexus/1.0.11/plexus-1.0.11.pom (9 KB at 28.9 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/codehaus/plexus/plexus-container-default/1.0-alpha-9/plexus-container-default-1.0-alpha-9.pom Downloaded: http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/codehaus/plexus/plexus-container-default/1.0-alpha-9/plexus-container-default-1.0-alpha-9.pom (2 KB at 4.3 KB/sec) Downloading: http://repo.maven.a
[Bug 834239] Review Request: monobristol - frontend for britsol in mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834239 --- Comment #14 from Jørn Lomax --- SPEC: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/monobristol.spec SRPMS: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packaging/monobristol-0.60.3-7.fc17.src.rpm I had changed the version in the spec and change log, just seem to have forgotten top 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 822997] Review Request: erlang-eper - Erlang performance and debugging tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822997 --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- I think the idea is that if you don't support EL5, you should drop the sections only relevant to EL5 from the spec :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837008] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-libvirt - Ruby bindings for LIBVIRT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837008 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-03 09:32:53 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
