[Bug 838870] Review Request: rubygem-therubyracer - Embed the V8 Javascript interpreter into Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838870 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Nonetheless, these are just minor nits, so I'll approve the package as soon as the rubygem-ref is available in the Rawhide and I'll be able to test the Koji build (it builds just fine locally). Here is the koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4235854 Great, thank you. All my concerns are gone now = 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 838870] Review Request: rubygem-therubyracer - Embed the V8 Javascript interpreter into Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838870 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-therubyracer Short Description: Embed the V8 Javascript interpreter into Ruby Owners: bkabrda Branches: 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 --- Comment #52 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- I've been told that, when multiple subpackages share common directories/files, it's better to define a *-common subpackage which owns them. As for Zukitwo, the situation is a bit complicated: - all subpackages share documentation files and a common main directory: /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo - all subpackages except gnome-shell-theme-* share two subdirectories: /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo/Zukitwo and /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo/Zukitwo-Dark - only gnome-shell-theme-* owns /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo/Zukitwo-Shell If the *-common subpackage owned /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo only, then ownership of the above-mentioned two subdirs would be repeated in all subpackages except gnome-shell-theme-*. Instead, if it owned also the two subdirs, it would be useless when installing only gnome-shell-theme-*. What do you suggest me to do? Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838423] Review Request: zukiwi - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838423 --- Comment #5 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- Mattia: editing the existing packages sounds like a good idea, please do that. OK. By the way, as for Zukitwo, a doubt has arisen. Please have a look here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169#c52 By the way -- the GTK3 parts are currently causing segfaults if used on Rawhide (against GTK3 3.5.x) - please let upstream know. I think this theme is meant to be compatible with GNOME 3.4 only. Anyway, I'll notify upstream. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838901] Review Request: autotest - Framework for fully automated testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901 --- Comment #4 from Martin Krizek mkri...@redhat.com --- What about autotest-framework? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839056] Review Request: python-flake8 - code checking using pep8 and pyflakes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839056
Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[!]: 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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: 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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: 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 Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[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 / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: 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
[Bug 839527] New: Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 Bug ID: 839527 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: brendan.jones...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora rtirq - realtime IRQ threading. rtirq is currentlp packaged in Planet CCRMA and is used quite widely for production use for preemptive/realtime kernels. Threadirqs parameter now makes it possible to use this script with stock kernels. This is a requirement for the Fedora Audio Spin. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq-20120505-2.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq.spec Rpmlint output: rtirq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Realtime - Mealtime, Real time, Real-time rtirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time rtirq.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Realtime - Mealtime, Real time, Real-time rtirq.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time rtirq.noarch: W: no-documentation rtirq.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/95-rtirq.rules rtirq.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtirq-udev rtirq.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq rtirq.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq rtirq.noarch: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. I will suggest upstream to release as systemd enabled. This is not a daemon so subsys lock is not required. service-default-enabled is intended -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||805236 (FedoraAudio) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658754] Review Request: CUBRID - a very fast and reliable open source SQL database server.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658754
--- Comment #12 from Esen Sagynov esen.sagy...@nhn.com ---
Hello Cristian,
First of all, thank you for your continuos support on IRC. You feedback was
very valuable for us to improve our CUBRID spec.
Below please find our last changes we've made according to your comments.
1) Regarding macros, we've replaced %{_prefix}/share/ with %{_datarootdir} and
%{_prefix}/include - %{_includedir}
2) Some files under /usr/include and share are owned by cubrid even if they
shouldn't. /usr/include directory is not owned by cubrid user. Only share dir
was. But when we tried to chown root:root, we found out that cubrid master
service checks if the files are owned by the user who is running the process.
When root:root, the cubrid master service fails to load saying “Current user
does not match CUBRID user”. Therefore, we had to roll back and chown
cubrid:cubrid the shared files. We have reported this issues in our Issue
Tracker, so we will look into it in the future version.
4) Regarding devel-file-in-non-devel-package, like I explained before some
libs must be in the main package because CUBRID uses them, otherwise, CUBRID
will not work; we moved all libs to devel package which were possible to move.
5) Regarding, put all commands under one giant command command like git does,
the cubrid command actually does exactly that. This is that giant command.
6) “strip --strip-unneded”: we have completely removed strip commands, which
now gives us only warnings saying W: unstripped-binary-or-object.
7) This allows us at least have the debuginfo package created and it has no
errors related to empty-debuginfo-package.
8) We now keep changelogs up to date. Also spec release number is always UP'ed
and file version is updated if necessary.
9) According to your suggestion, we added conditionals to handle different Java
versions for different versions of Fedora.
10) For new Fedora we use systemd now, and for old including RH distributions
use SysV scripts.
11) Replace %{libdir} with the standard %{_libdir} macro. As I explained
before, we cannot do this in this version because we have a hardcoded /usr/lib
path which is used even on 64-bit system architecture. We will fix this in the
CUBRID core in the future version.
12) We no longer start the program/service after installation.
13) If possible, use a private /tmp in your systemd service unit. We didn't
add PrivateTmp=true because cubrid master process failed to start if this
line was set in cubrid.service.
I am glad that so far CUBRID package is being successfully built at Fedora.
Please let me know if there is anything we can do more to improve the CUBRID
spec.
Thank you Cristian!
Regards,
Esen Sagynov.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839382] Review Request: python-django-mako - Mako Templates Plugin for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839382 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #1 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- I'll take this one for a 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 839382] Review Request: python-django-mako - Mako Templates Plugin for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839382 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- The specfile is clear, package builds and works fine. I have no objections. 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 839382] Review Request: python-django-mako - Mako Templates Plugin for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839382 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Huh, sorry :) Done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839382] Review Request: python-django-mako - Mako Templates Plugin for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839382 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Thanks for the quick and smooth review. Could you please set review+ (instead of cvs+?) ;-) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-mako Short Description: Mako Templates Plugin for Django Owners: mrunge Branches: devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839301] Package Rename Review Request: python-django-evolution - Schema evolution for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839301 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- I'll take this for a 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 839301] Package Rename Review Request: python-django-evolution - Schema evolution for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839301 --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- - According to [1], the obsoletes shouldn't use macros, but rather hardcode the version from where you renamed the package. E.g. you should have Obsoletes: django-evolution 0.6.7-2. - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed in the %files section, unless you want to build for EPEL 5 (which presumably you don't). Same applies for the BuildRoot tag, %clean section and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. - You should delete the bundled egg-info directory in the %prep section (rm -rf django_evolution.egg-info), so that it gets regenerated during %build. These are not serious issues, so once you fix them, I will approve the package. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839119] Review Request: Albatross - Desktop Suite for Xfce, GTK+ 2 and 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839119 --- Comment #4 from Jayson Rowe jayson.r...@gmail.com --- sources: http://jaysonr.fedorapeople.org/packages/albatross/shimmerproject-Albatross-v1.2-6-g6fead95.tar.gz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839104] Review Request: Bluebird - Themes for GTK+3 as part of the Bluebird theme.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839104 --- Comment #2 from Jayson Rowe jayson.r...@gmail.com --- sources: http://jaysonr.fedorapeople.org/packages/bluebird/shimmerproject-Bluebird-v0.6-1-g5aa322d.tar.gz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839119] Review Request: Albatross - Desktop Suite for Xfce, GTK+ 2 and 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839119 --- Comment #5 from Jayson Rowe jayson.r...@gmail.com --- Dan, here is the .spec from an approved package of another of the Shimmer themes I used as my basis: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/greybird.spec It gives the same warning with rpmlint. Can you help me understand what that means, and how I should fix it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 658754] Review Request: CUBRID - a very fast and reliable open source SQL database server.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658754 --- Comment #13 from Cristian Ciupitu cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com --- I redownloaded cubrid.spec[1] then the source files using `spectool --get-files ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/cubrid.spec`. Unfortunately `tar tzf cubrid-8.4.1.2032.3.tar.gz` says: gzip: stdin: unexpected end of file tar: Unexpected EOF in archive tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now [1] http://switch.dl.sourceforge.net/project/cubrid/CUBRID-8.4.1/Linux/Fedora-RPM/cubrid.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 725292] Review Request: s3fs - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 Neil Horman nhor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #17 from Neil Horman nhor...@redhat.com --- ping again -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832471] Review Request: perl-GStreamer-Interfaces - GStreamer::Interfaces Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832471
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jples...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[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 Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN, LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address), LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED
FILE For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/jplesnik/review/tmp/832471-perl-GStreamer-
Interfaces/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the
[Bug 809536] Review Request: tuscany-sdo-java - Service Data Objects 2.1 Java API spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809536 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.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 832727] Review Request: python-django-addons - A framework to create pluggable Django add-ons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832727 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- I'll take this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825496] Review Request: python-django-staticfiles - A Django app that provides helpers for serving static files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825496 Domingo Becker domingobec...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-12 08:53:30 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832727] Review Request: python-django-addons - A framework to create pluggable Django add-ons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832727 --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- - I think that BR: python-setuptools-devel should be python-setuptools, shouldn't it? - rpmlint is reporting filesize mismatch. Could you redownload the package and create new SRPM? python-django-addons.src: W: file-size-mismatch django-addons-0.6.4.tar.gz = 15567, http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-addons/django-addons-0.6.4.tar.gz = 15958 - There are some things that are only needed for EPEL 5, do you plan to build your package there, too? Otherwise you can remove them: BuildRoot tag, %clean section, rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, %defattr(-,root,root,-) Otherwise the package looks good, so once you fix these issues, please post the updated SPEC/SRPM here so I can have a final look and approve 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 --- Comment #53 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com --- Is it viable to make the *-common subpackage create and own also /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo/Zukitwo-Shell (in addition to /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo/Zukitwo, /usr/share/themes/Zukitwo/Zukitwo-Dark and documentation files)? The only issue is that, if one opted not to install gnome-shell-theme-*, the (empty) Zukitwo-Shell directory would exist anyway. What do you think? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834481] Review Request: lttng-tools - LTTng control and utility programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834481 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 834481] Review Request: lttng-tools - LTTng control and utility programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834481 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-tools-2.0.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lttng-tools-2.0.3-1.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 809536] Review Request: tuscany-sdo-java - Service Data Objects 2.1 Java API spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809536
Patryk Obara pob...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Patryk Obara pob...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/tuscany-sdo-java.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/tuscany-sdo-java-1.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/tuscany-sdo-java-1.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/tuscany-sdo-java-javadoc-1.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
tuscany-sdo-java-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -
Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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: cb2c688470f6043963ffc74977ae1c3a
apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1.1-src.tar.gz
MD5SUM upstream package: cb2c688470f6043963ffc74977ae1c3a
apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1.1-src.tar.gz
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4236438
*** 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
[Bug 823862] Review Request: bval - Apache Bean Validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823862
--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint bval-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
bval.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase - co debase,
co-debase, code base
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint bval-javadoc-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint bval-0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
bval.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase - co debase,
co-debase, code base
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java
[x]: MUST
[Bug 809540] Review Request: eclipselink - Eclipse Persistence Services Project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809540 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- I'll take it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836850] Review Request: truezip - Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mizde...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I am willing to take this review after all bugs it depends on are resolved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mizde...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I am taking this 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com ---
Rpmlint:
Warnings in rpmlint (below) are due to your description of how to generate the
tarball from source repo.
1) LICENCE - there's no indication in the script itself of the licence -
suggest you include the short apache header in it.
installed RPM:
$ rpm -q ginfo
ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc17.noarch
$ rpmlint ginfo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings
SRPM:
$ rpmlint ./ginfo-0.1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment
%{name}
ginfo.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ginfo.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ginfo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ginfo-0.1.5.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warning
Review mandatory items are otherwise OK but the functionality of the script
needs some checks - There's no (adjustable) timeout on the LDAP call so if the
bdii server is unavailable then you need to wait for a default (60s) timeout in
the underlying python lib:
$ time ginfo --host bdii.scotgrid.ac.uk
Error: Can't contact the LDAP server. Please check your host.
real1m3.186s
user0m0.056s
sys0m0.013s
Secondly the man page includes references to
ginfo --host bdii.host.invalid
but you'd be better using bdii.example.com (RFC 2606) as:
.invalid is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
glance are invalid.
-- you're trying to give an example of a VALID query not an invalid one!
Other than that, once you've updated the description it should be OK to go.
[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[OK] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK]1 The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
[No] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
-- See 1) above -- you include the 'how to apply' part but not the licence.txt
It'd be nice to put the contents of your current LICENSE as a comment in the
start of the script and the actual apache licence txt in LICENSE.
If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc.[4]
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
[N/A] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[N/A] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[OK] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker. [12]
[OK} A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. [13]
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
[OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[N/A]
[Bug 839639] New: Review Request: gstreamer10 - GStreamer streaming media framework run-time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839639 Bug ID: 839639 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: gstreamer10 - GStreamer streaming media framework run-time Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: bdpep...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10.spec SRPM URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10/gstreamer10-0.10.36-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: GStreamer package for the old api (0.10) that will help with the migration to GStreamer-1.0 Fedora Account System Username: bpepple -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 746215] Review Request: perl-RT-Authen-ExternalAuth - RT Authentication using External Sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746215 Zbysek MRAZ zm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||839640 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839639] Review Request: gstreamer10 - GStreamer streaming media framework run-time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839639 --- Comment #1 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com --- btw: here's a diff between the old gstreamer package and the new one. http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer-spec.diff i686 Scatch build: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839647] New: Review Request: gstreamer10-plugins-base - GStreamer streaming media framework base plug-ins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839647 Bug ID: 839647 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: gstreamer10-plugins-base - GStreamer streaming media framework base plug-ins Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: bdpep...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10-plugins-base.spec SRPM URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10-plugins-base/gstreamer10-plugins-base-0.10.36-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: GStreamer package for the old api (0.10) that will help with the migration to GStreamer-1.0. Diff between old spec file: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer-plugins-base.diff i686 build: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10-plugins-base/ Fedora Account System Username: bpepple -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823862] Review Request: bval - Apache Bean Validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823862 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bval/1/bval.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bval/1/bval-0.4-2.fc16.src.rpm - Installed NOTICE file in javadoc package - Fix preserve timestamps of installed POM files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839648] New: Review Request: gstreamer10-plugins-good - GStreamer plug-ins with good code and licensing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839648 Bug ID: 839648 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: gstreamer10-plugins-good - GStreamer plug-ins with good code and licensing Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: bdpep...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10-plugins-good.spec SRPM URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10-plugins-good/gstreamer10-plugins-good-0.10.31-5.fc18.src.rpm Description: GStreamer package for the old api (0.10) that will help with the migration to GStreamer-1.0. Diff between old spec file: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer-plugins-good.diff i686 build: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer10-plugins-good/ Fedora Account System Username: bpepple -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
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
[!]: 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 License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-2.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
jboss-reflect.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-reflect.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-reflect-2.2.1.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-2.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
jboss-reflect.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-reflect.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-javadoc-2.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
jboss-reflect-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-reflect-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These warnings can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations
[Bug 809536] Review Request: tuscany-sdo-java - Service Data Objects 2.1 Java API spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809536 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tuscany-sdo-java Short Description: Service Data Objects 2.1 Java API spec Owners: gil Branches: f17 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839649] New: Review Request: rubygem-rails_best_practices - a code metric tool for rails codes, written in Ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839649 Bug ID: 839649 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rails_best_practices - a code metric tool for rails codes, written in Ruby. Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mza...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rails_best_practices.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-rails_best_practices-1.10.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: a code metric tool for rails codes, written in Ruby. Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839650] New: Review Request: rubygem-awesome_print - Pretty print Ruby objects with proper indentation and colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650 Bug ID: 839650 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: rubygem-awesome_print - Pretty print Ruby objects with proper indentation and colors Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mza...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/awesome_print.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-awesome_print-1.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Great Ruby dubugging companion: pretty print Ruby objects to visualize their structure. Supports custom object formatting via plugins Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839652] New: Review Request: rubygem-colored - Add some color to your life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839652 Bug ID: 839652 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: rubygem-colored - Add some color to your life Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mza...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/colored.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-colored-1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: puts this is red.red puts this is red with a blue background (read: ugly).red_on_blue puts this is red with an underline.red.underline puts this is really bold and really blue.bold.blue logger.debug hey this is broken!.red_on_yellow # in rails puts Color.red This is red # but this part is mostly untested Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823862] Review Request: bval - Apache Bean Validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823862 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- It's OK now. Tested on Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4236514 ** ** 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 839653] New: Review Request: rubygem-slim - Slim is a template language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839653 Bug ID: 839653 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: rubygem-slim - Slim is a template language Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mza...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/slim.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-slim-1.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Slim is a template language whose goal is reduce the syntax to the essential parts without becoming cryptic. Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839654] New: Review Request: rubygem-temple - Template compilation framework in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839654 Bug ID: 839654 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: rubygem-temple - Template compilation framework in Ruby Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mza...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/temple.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-temple-0.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Template compilation framework in Ruby Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823862] Review Request: bval - Apache Bean Validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823862 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bval Short Description: Apache Bean Validation Owners: gil Branches: f17 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839117] Review Request: maven-wagon-ahc - A wagon provider for HTTP transfers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839117 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mizde...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I am taking this 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 839649] Review Request: rubygem-rails_best_practices - a code metric tool for rails codes, written in Ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839649
Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mfoj...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com ---
Review:
- Summary %description should start with the capital 'A'
- No tests
Please check if those tests are not included in gem, if so, I would ask
upstream to add them. But not a review-blocker:
https://github.com/railsbp/rails_best_practices/tree/master/spec
- The list of files in the %files section looks a bit ugly, it is possible to
somehow compress it? Like using directories rather than listing all files?
- Please exclude the '.yardoc/*' files, then are not needed for the gem
- Also consider removing this files:
%{gem_instdir}/.gemtest
%{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%{gem_instdir}/.rspec
%{gem_instdir}/.rvmrc
%{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml
%{gem_instdir}/Gemfile
%{gem_instdir}/Gemfile.lock
%{gem_instdir}/Guardfile
- The MIT_LICENSE should go into main %files section
- I also think the 'License: GPLv2+ or Ruby' is wrong, since the license seems
to be MIT.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839650] Review Request: rubygem-awesome_print - Pretty print Ruby objects with proper indentation and colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650
Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mfoj...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com ---
Review:
- The 'License: GPLv2+ or Ruby' seems to be wrong, according to GitHub page it
should be MIT
- Consider using %gem_name macro here:
URL: http://github.com/michaeldv/awesome_print
- Move the 'spec' files into -doc subpackage, since they are not needed for the
main gem funcionality.
%{gem_instdir}/spec/colors_spec.rb
- Consider removing these files:
%{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%{gem_instdir}/.yardoc/checksums
%{gem_instdir}/.yardoc/objects/root.dat
%{gem_instdir}/.yardoc/proxy_types
%{gem_instdir}/Gemfile.lock
- Move LICENSE into main %files section
- Please run the 'spec' files in the %check section
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839117] Review Request: maven-wagon-ahc - A wagon provider for HTTP transfers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839117 --- Comment #3 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/maven-wagon-ahc/1.2.1-2/maven-wagon-ahc.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/maven-wagon-ahc/1.2.1-2/maven-wagon-ahc-1.2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Apache 2.0 license text added to srpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 710383] Review Request: Agda - Commandline for dependently typed functional language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710383
Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|VERIFIED
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com ---
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.
Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/shaks/710383/Agda-executable-2.3.0.1.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : a9c803f0a829cf54d35b1a82f0ba6181
MD5SUM upstream package : a9c803f0a829cf54d35b1a82f0ba6181
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[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.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
External plugins:
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
[Bug 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315 --- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- I will review 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 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839117] Review Request: maven-wagon-ahc - A wagon provider for HTTP transfers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839117
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
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 License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint maven-wagon-ahc-javadoc-1.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
maven-wagon-ahc-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -
Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint maven-wagon-ahc-1.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
maven-wagon-ahc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async - sync, a
sync
maven-wagon-ahc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http - HTTP
maven-wagon-ahc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-wagon-ahc-1.2.1.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint maven-wagon-ahc-1.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
maven-wagon-ahc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async - sync,
a sync
maven-wagon-ahc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http - HTTP
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These warnings can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[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.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text
[Bug 839117] Review Request: maven-wagon-ahc - A wagon provider for HTTP transfers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839117 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-wagon-ahc Short Description: A wagon provider for HTTP transfers Owners: galileo Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828544] Review Request: megaglest-data - Mega Glest data files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828544
--- Comment #10 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
In addition to the above comments, please change the spec file as this to avoid
confusion and data directory ownership problems with megaglest:
%install
make install DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} -C build
rm -fr ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/megaglest/docs
%files
%doc docs/*
%{_datadir}/megaglest/configuration.xml
%{_datadir}/megaglest/data/
%{_datadir}/megaglest/glest*
%{_datadir}/megaglest/maps/
%{_datadir}/megaglest/megaglest.bmp
%{_datadir}/megaglest/scenarios/
%{_datadir}/megaglest/techs/
%{_datadir}/megaglest/tilesets/
%{_datadir}/megaglest/tutorials/
This way %{_datadir}/megaglest will be owned by megaglest, the docs will be
in the proper place in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/* and we don't get the
chance of installing megaglest-data without the actual
%{_datadir}/megaglest/ data folder already in place in the filesystem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828544] Review Request: megaglest-data - Mega Glest data files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828544
--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
well, this can even be shorter as long as you don't include the directory
%{_datadir}/megaglest itself:
%install
make install DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} -C build
rm -fr ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/megaglest/docs
%files
%doc docs/*
%{_datadir}/megaglest/*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- This doesn't build for now in rawhide: DEBUG: -- Found Lua library: /usr/lib64/liblua.so DEBUG: -- Found Lua headers: /usr/include DEBUG: CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake:97 (MESSAGE): DEBUG: Could NOT find JPEG (missing: JPEG_LIBRARY JPEG_INCLUDE_DIR) DEBUG: Call Stack (most recent call first): DEBUG: /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake:288 (_FPHSA_FAILURE_MESSAGE) DEBUG: /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindJPEG.cmake:31 (FIND_PACKAGE_HANDLE_STANDARD_ARGS) DEBUG: source/shared_lib/CMakeLists.txt:124 (FIND_PACKAGE) DEBUG: -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! DEBUG: RPM build errors: DEBUG: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Sc90ca (%build) DEBUG: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Sc90ca (%build) DEBUG: Child return code was: 1 I will proceed with the review of all the other items in the meanwhile. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315
--- Comment #13 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[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.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/817315/megaglest-source-3.6.0.3.tar.xz :
MD5SUM this package : 5a4a2429435031d9f9cc5d9535a9de9d
MD5SUM upstream package : 36427c1fce8e23911d9a5ca563770af8
[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.
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: 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.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315
--- Comment #14 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
Issues:
[!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Currently it doesn't build. Dependencies are ok, but the build does not
succeed, see comment #12.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
There's no license file packaged in the %doc directive, but is correctly
shipped inside the archive. Please add the following to the %files section:
%files
%doc AUTHORS.source_code.txt
%doc CHANGELOG.txt
%doc COPYRIGHT.source_code.txt
%doc gnu_gpl_3.0.txt
%doc README.txt
Release management and compiling docs are not useful inside the pre-compiled
binary rpm we'll be installing.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
The files section relies on files in the megaglest folder, by adding the
megagles folder itself you ensure the directory is owned by the base megaglest
package and the megaglest-data package can rely on it for installing. See the
other review for the details.
%files
%{_datadir}/megaglest
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
As per the megaglest-data review, the sourceforge url downloads an html file,
according to the packaging guidelines sourceforge urls' should be explicitly
declared as in the packaging guidelines.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839701] New: Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard. There are also sub modules that determine if a particular database server reserves the word.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701 Bug ID: 839701 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard. There are also sub modules that determine if a particular database server reserves the word. Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wf...@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard. There are also sub modules that determine if a particular database server reserves the word. Fedora Account System Username: wfp I would like to eventually package Rose::DB::Object, this module is required for it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823889] Review Request: openjpa - Java Persistence 2.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889 --- Comment #1 from Patryk Obara pob...@redhat.com --- maven-dependency-plugin is missing from build dependencies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839701] Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||perl-devel@lists.fedoraproj ||ect.org Summary|Determine if words are |Determine if words are |reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL|reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL |standard. There are also |standard. |sub modules that determine | |if a particular database| |server reserves the word. | 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 839701] Review Request: perl-SQL-ReservedWords - Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Determine if words are |Review Request: |reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL|perl-SQL-ReservedWords - |standard. |Determine if words are ||reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL ||standard. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] New: Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 Bug ID: 839706 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wf...@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Time-Clock.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Time-Clock-1.02-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: A Time::Clock object is a twenty-four hour clock with nanosecond precision and wrap-around. It is a clock only; it has absolutely no concept of dates. Vagaries of date/time such as leap seconds and daylight savings time are unsupported. Fedora Account System Username: wfp I would like to eventually package Rose::DB::Object, this module is required for it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||perl-devel@lists.fedoraproj ||ect.org 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 839701] Review Request: perl-SQL-ReservedWords - Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu 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 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu 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 823889] Review Request: openjpa - Java Persistence 2.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openjpa/1/openjpa.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openjpa/1/openjpa-2.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm - added maven-dependency-plugin as build deps. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835064] Review Request: perl-Devel-DProf - Deprecated Perl code profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835064 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-12 11:37:22 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Merged to F18. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835103] Review Request: perl-Pod-Parser - Basic perl modules for handling Plain Old Documentation (POD)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835103 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-12 11:38:11 --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Merged to F18. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236 --- Comment #6 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- Thanks Dan. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236 Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sugar-recall Short Description: A series of memory games Owners: callkalpa Branches: f15 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 837313] Review Request: gssproxy - A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #3 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com --- Andreas -- Could you go back and please do a proper Fedora Review? Just looking at the spec file and not attempting to build or understand gssproxy at all, I immediately see two things wrong with it (Not a complete URL to the Source, scriptlets for installing systemd units are wrong). The lack of any Requires: is also fishy to me... I'm thinking there's probably at least a missing Requires: on some systemd package. The ldconfig invocation in the %post script is also fishy -- I don't see any libraries being installed and if there were libraries installed, there's no matching ldconfig call in %postun. If you dig into the package you may find even more stuff wrong. For help with doing a proper review, you can look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines The scriptlets for systemd are on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: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 836708] Review Request: sugar-locosugar - a game for discovering how to use the mouse and keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836708 --- Comment #5 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- Dan, I fixed the other issues, please find the new files below, Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-locosugar/sugar-locosugar.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-locosugar/sugar-locosugar-3-2.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 837313] Review Request: gssproxy - A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |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 --- Comment #4 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com --- Actually, that was the general systemd-in-packaging page. The scriptlets themselves are on: http://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 839730] New: Review Request: sugar-chart - Sugar Activity for create charts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839730 Bug ID: 839730 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: sugar-chart - Sugar Activity for create charts Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: germa...@fedoraproject.org Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://germanrs.fedorapeople.org/Sugar/sugar-chart/sugar-chart.spec SRPM: http://germanrs.fedorapeople.org/Sugar/sugar-chart/sugar-chart-5-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: SimpleGraph is an Activity for create charts using PyCha... [german@fundacion SPECS]$ rpmlint -i sugar-chart.spec sugar-chart.spec:6: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: Amusements/Games, Amusements/Graphics, Applications/Archiving, Applications/Communications, Applications/Databases, Applications/Editors, Applications/Emulators, Applications/Engineering, Applications/File, Applications/Internet, Applications/Multimedia, Applications/Productivity, Applications/Publishing, Applications/System, Applications/Text, Development/Debug, Development/Debuggers, Development/Languages, Development/Libraries, Development/System, Development/Tools, Documentation, System Environment/Base, System Environment/Daemons, System Environment/Kernel, System Environment/Libraries, System Environment/Shells, Unspecified, User Interface/Desktops, User Interface/X, User Interface/X Hardware Support. 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [german@fundacion SPECS]$ [german@fundacion SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i sugar-chart-5-1.fc17.src.rpm sugar-chart.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: Amusements/Games, Amusements/Graphics, Applications/Archiving, Applications/Communications, Applications/Databases, Applications/Editors, Applications/Emulators, Applications/Engineering, Applications/File, Applications/Internet, Applications/Multimedia, Applications/Productivity, Applications/Publishing, Applications/System, Applications/Text, Development/Debug, Development/Debuggers, Development/Languages, Development/Libraries, Development/System, Development/Tools, Documentation, System Environment/Base, System Environment/Daemons, System Environment/Kernel, System Environment/Libraries, System Environment/Shells, Unspecified, User Interface/Desktops, User Interface/X, User Interface/X Hardware Support. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [german@fundacion SRPMS]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837268] Review Request: CardManager - network game for collectable card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837268
jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com ---
hi!
Thank you for very careful review!
most issues have been fixed:
http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager.spec
http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager-1-1.fc16.src.rpm
http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager-1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager-javadoc-1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
namely:
cp -r dist/javadoc/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}
FIXED - added asterix
the subpackage javadoc should got the license file and remove the
%%defattr(-,root,root,-) This is OK if
FIXED - both
edit /%{_datadir}/%{name}
FIXED - removed leading slash
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
FIXED - clean removed
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files javadoc section. This is OK if
packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
FIXED - global defattr removed
Two not fixed:
1) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: 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
and
Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install
REASON: I must be blind but there is already
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
...
2)[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint CardManager-1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
CardManager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -
multiform, formulation, formulator
CardManager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US downloadable -
down loadable, down-loadable, download able
CardManager-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java
docs,
CardManager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CardManager
CardManager.noarch: E: use-of-home-in-%post
CardManager.noarch: E: use-of-home-in-%postun
CardManager.noarch: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/CardManager.jar
Well this rule was added recently and is going to be removed or touched as to
strict. I hope I have good excuse for all issues by rpmlint:
2.a multiplatform - I consider this word as correct
2.b downloadable - likewise
2.c Javadocs - likewise - copy-pasted from guidelines anyway;)
2.d no-manual-page-for-binary - gui application with own gui-help
2.e uncompressed-zip - what I can see in rpm is zip with mor ethen 50% of
compression. Bug in rpmlint?
2.f CardManager.noarch: E: use-of-home-in-%postun and %post - This is most
discusable issue. I'm using it just for echo so I believe that it can stay in
as serving good purpose. However, if you really insist I will remove it.
Thank you for your review again!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832727] Review Request: python-django-addons - A framework to create pluggable Django add-ons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832727 Domingo Becker domingobec...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #3 from Domingo Becker domingobec...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #2) - I think that BR: python-setuptools-devel should be python-setuptools, shouldn't it? - rpmlint is reporting filesize mismatch. Could you redownload the package and create new SRPM? python-django-addons.src: W: file-size-mismatch django-addons-0.6.4.tar.gz = 15567, http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-addons/django-addons-0.6.4. tar.gz = 15958 Fixed. - There are some things that are only needed for EPEL 5, do you plan to build your package there, too? Otherwise you can remove them: BuildRoot tag, %clean section, rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, %defattr(-,root,root,-) Fixed. New spec and srpm: Spec URL: http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/python-django-addons.spec SRPM URL: http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/python-django-addons-0.6.4-7.fc18.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 837268] Review Request: CardManager - network game for collectable card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837268
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
hi
should remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
should/must become
%install
#desktop
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/pixmaps
thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839740] New: Review Request: crrcsim-addon-models - Addon models for Crrcsim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839740 Bug ID: 839740 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: crrcsim-addon-models - Addon models for Crrcsim Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/crrcsim-addon-models.spec SRPM URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Addon models for Crrcsim Fedora Account System Username: dwrobel rpmlint: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839740] Review Request: crrcsim-addon-models - Addon models for Crrcsim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839740 Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||832524 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839742] New: Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bug ID: 839742 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wf...@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Rose::Object is a generic object base class. It provides very little functionality, but a healthy dose of convention. Fedora Account System Username: wfp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 --- Comment #1 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- Oops, cut and pasted URLs from another request, here are the correct ones. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837268] Review Request: CardManager - network game for collectable card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837268 --- Comment #6 from jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com --- ah sure. Sorry for misunderstanding. Removed. http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager.spec http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager-1-1.fc16.src.rpm http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager-1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/CardManagerReview/round2/CardManager-javadoc-1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839744 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] New: Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 Bug ID: 839744 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Clone Of: 839742 Version: rawhide Depends On: 839742 Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org, perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wf...@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DateTime.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: The Rose::DateTime::* modules provide a few convenience functions and objects for use with DateTime dates. This requires Rose::Object Fedora Account System Username: wfp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839751] New: Review Request: perl-Rose-DB - DBI wrapper and abstraction layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839751 Bug ID: 839751 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Rose-DB - DBI wrapper and abstraction layer Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wf...@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DB.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DB-0.769-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: Rose::DB is a wrapper and abstraction layer for DBI-related functionality. A Rose::DB object has a DBI object; it is not a subclass of DBI. This requires Rose::Object, SQL::ReservedWords, and Time::Clock Fedora Account System Username: wfp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839701] Review Request: perl-SQL-ReservedWords - Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839751 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839751 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839751] Review Request: perl-Rose-DB - DBI wrapper and abstraction layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839751 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||perl-devel@lists.fedoraproj ||ect.org Depends On||839701, 839706, 839742, ||839744 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839751 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839751 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839754] New: Review Request: perl-Rose-DB-Object - Extensible, high performance object-relational mapper (ORM)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839754 Bug ID: 839754 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Rose-DB-Object - Extensible, high performance object-relational mapper (ORM) Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wf...@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DB-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-DB-Object-0.859-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: Rose::DB::Object is a base class for objects that encapsulate a single row in a database table. Rose::DB::Object-derived objects are sometimes simply called Rose::DB::Object objects in this documentation for the sake of brevity, but be assured that derivation is the only reasonable way to use this class. Fedora Account System Username: wfp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839751] Review Request: perl-Rose-DB - DBI wrapper and abstraction layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839751 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||839754 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839754] Review Request: perl-Rose-DB-Object - Extensible, high performance object-relational mapper (ORM)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839754 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||perl-devel@lists.fedoraproj ||ect.org Depends On||839701, 839706, 839742, ||839744, 839751 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
