[Bug 840551] Review Request: sugar-kuku - arithmetic education game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vasc...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Hi.
1. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at
the
beginning of %install.
2. Add COPYING MANIFEST and README to %files section like %doc.
3. rpmlint error:
sugar-kuku.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/sugar/activities/KukuAnakula.activity/kuku_config.py
Please correct this and check with 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 840740] New: Review Request: ibus-typing-booster - Auto completion for ibus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840740 Bug ID: 840740 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: ibus-typing-booster - Auto completion for ibus Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: apa...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/ibus-typing-booster.spec SRPM URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/ibus-typing-booster-0.0.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Predictive text using hunspell dictionaries. It is a replacement for ibus-hunspell-table Fedora Account System Username:anishpatil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831929] Review Request: grub-customizer - Grub Customizer is a graphical interface to configure the grub2/burg settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831929
--- Comment #5 from vasc...@gmail.com ---
But here another reviewer told me make same patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404
And due to "The license file, usually COPYING, must not be patched for legal
reasons. Other files can be patched if deemed suitable." I not patch license
file, only sources.
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/*
corrected to
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #90 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to comment #88) > My hostile comments were aimed at Ralf Corsepius, not you. What was hostile about my comments to justify your hostile ad-hominem attacks? So far, this package suffers from bugs - period. This might not match with your wishes and suite into your intentions, but that's all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Scheme Interpreter (Replacement for plt-scheme)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Eli Barzilay changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo? | --- Comment #10 from Eli Barzilay --- The build failre is a little before these lines, where it says "about to suspend in atomic mode". I think that this is a problem that was fixed since 5.2.1 came out, so it's worth trying with the current sources. (Like I said, we've just started a new release now anyway.) There shouldn't be any problem with libraries now, and as long as there's a dependency on libffi there's not even a need to disable it in the configure line since it defaults to using the one in the system if it is found. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810336] Review Request: ga - Global Arrays Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336 --- Comment #18 from David Brown --- I updated to get rid of a lot of the warnings. http://dmlb2000.homelinux.org/packages/ga-5.1-3.fc17.src.rpm $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ga.src: E: specfile-error doBuild: invalid option -- '-' ga.src: E: specfile-error error: Unknown option ? in doBuild() ga-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ga-5.1/ga-5.1-openmpi/armci/src/include/tas-i386.h ga-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ga-5.1/ga-5.1-mpich2/armci/src/include/tas-i386.h ga-mpich2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ga-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings. $ The errors about the doBuild thing are kinda weird its in reference to the argument I pass as --with-openib. Its not an error in shell that's perfectly acceptable, and the build happens just fine. So I'm not sure what I'm doing 'wrong' with it spitting out an error like that. The incorrect fsf address I can't really do anything about upstream has been made aware of it. The warnings about non-binary in usr-lib are for the ga-config scripts that are supposed to be in the MPI_ROOT/bin directory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840253] Review Request: fourterm - Lightweight split-screen terminal emulator with vim key mappings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840253
Matt Spaulding changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Matt Spaulding ---
Below is my package review. Please correct items listed under "Issues" and that
should be good.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: Fedora 17 and Rawhide on x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath}
fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{__id_u}
fourterm.spec:45: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm}
fourterm.spec:73: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm}
fourterm.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/projects/fourterm/releases/fourterm-1.0.5.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
fourterm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fourterm
fourterm.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/fourterm-1.0.5/INSTALL
fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath}
fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{__id_u}
fourterm.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm}
fourterm.src:71: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm}
fourterm.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/projects/fourterm/releases/fourterm-1.0.5.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is not set.
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv3+
[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] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does not have %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] 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.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: Fedora 17 and rawhide on x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: x86_64
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1. Like you mention, the Requires for libgee and glib2 are not necessary.
Please remove them.
2. Debuginfo packages cannot be generated for Vala code. Please disable the
debug package with "%global debug_package %{nil}"
[Bug 810336] Review Request: ga - Global Arrays Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336 --- Comment #17 from David Brown --- http://dmlb2000.homelinux.org/packages/ga.spec original spec file has been updated to reflect the new version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840714] Review Request: python-django-threaded-multihost - Django Module to enable multi-site awareness in Django apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840714 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840714] New: Review Request: python-django-threaded-multihost - Django Module to enable multi-site awareness in Django apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840714 Bug ID: 840714 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: python-django-threaded-multihost - Django Module to enable multi-site awareness in Django apps Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/django-threaded-multihost/python-django-threaded-multihost.spec SRPM URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/django-threaded-multihost/python-django-threaded-multihost-1.4.0-4.20120717hg80ee24.fc17.src.rpm Description: python-django-threaded multihost provides support utilities to enable easy multi-site awareness in Django apps. Fedora Account System Username: kumarpraveen Note : This is package rename review request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |dan.mas...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||840707 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840149 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] New: (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 Bug ID: 840707 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: 17 Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-doc-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE dekstop doc utils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #26 from Dan Mashal --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mate-common Short Description: binaries for building all MATE desktop sub components Owners: vicodan rdieter Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: vicodan rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 803558] Review Request: ehcache-core - Easy Hibernate Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803558 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #25 from Dan Mashal --- My mistake, misunderstood. I'll remove that. 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 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Rex Dieter --- OK, looks good, APPROVED. curious why you added Requires: gnome-common though. ?? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #11 from Jeff Peeler ---
Should probably make summary and description match (use %{name} in both places
instead of once using ${gem_name}).
${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/'
%{gem_libdir} = %{gem_instdir}/lib
Previous comment about cache still applies, but a better way:
%exclude ${gem_cache}
%{gem_spec} = %{gem_dir}/specifications/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec
%{gem_docdir} = %{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version}
As Vit pointed out, files section should start with "%dir %{gem_instdir}"
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[X]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST 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 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 Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST 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 Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[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.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (sshkey-1.3.0.gem)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Language
[x]: MUST Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[!]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem.
[X]: MUST Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: MUST Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: MUST Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: MUST Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: MUST Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: MUST Package contains Requires: ruby(abi).
[!]: SHOULD Specfile should utilize macros from rubygem-devel package.
Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache},
%{gem_libdir}, %{gem_spec}, %doc %{gem_docdir}
[x]: SHOULD Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: SHOULD Test suite of the library should be run.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Gem package must exclude cached Gem.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
Rpmlint
---
Checking: rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.src.rpm
rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/cache.ri
rubygem-sshkey-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro
/usr/share/gems/doc/sshkey-1.3.0/ri/SSHKey/valid_ssh_public_key%3f-c.ri %3f
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint rubygem-sshkey
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rubygem-sshkey = 1.3.0-3.fc17
rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-3.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ruby(abi) = 1.9.1
rubygems
Provides
rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-3.fc17
[Bug 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |dan.mas...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- genders-1.18-6.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/genders-1.18-6.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- genders-1.18-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/genders-1.18-6.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- genders-1.18-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/genders-1.18-6.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810010] Review Request: genders - file based database for cluster managment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- genders-1.18-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/genders-1.18-6.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 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #23 from Dan Mashal --- Updated license. It is GPLv3+. I will do the license review on a package by package basis. Most everything is GPLv2+, GPLv3(+), lGPL as per perberos. Added gnome-common to requires field. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-common.spec SRPM: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-common-1.4.0-5.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 803558] Review Request: ehcache-core - Easy Hibernate Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803558 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ehcache-core Short Description: Easy Hibernate Cache 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 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter --- So, I just looked closer at the gnome-common analog, http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gnome-common.git;a=blob;f=gnome-common.spec and see some things we could... borrow here. :) stuff like: runtime requires better summary/description so, 1. MUST: add runtime deps Requires: automake autoconf libtool gettext pkgconfig 2. SHOULD: improve pkg summary/description as suggested 3. MUST: Licensing: so, .spec says GPLv2+, and none of the included files mention licensing, except for the embedded COPYING file, which is GPLv3. can you verify with upstream (if you haven't already), their intent here? (I'm assuming some GPLv2+ (with some/all libs LGPLv2+) combo like pre-forked gnome2...) naming: ok macros: ok scriptlets: n/a sources: ok $ md5sum *.xz bc49ff6897ef2303c6464a3ca46aaf35 mate-common-1.4.0.tar.xz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 809540] Review Request: eclipselink - Eclipse Persistence Services Project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809540 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipselink Short Description: Eclipse Persistence Services Project 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 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.mas...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #6 from Dan Mashal --- Adding spot's comments here so they don't get lost in the other bug: "Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-07-15 14:53:30 EDT We probably cannot distribute "nyan cat" in source format either, without permission from the copyright holder. I have not looked at the source code at all, however, if only the image of "pop tart cat" is being used here, you may wish you ask the copyright holder (prguitarman ) for permission. The alternative would be to simply remove the "nyan cat" content from the source tarball entirely and make a "clean" tarball." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839851] (MATE-desktop) Review Request: mate-common -- mate common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #21 from Dan Mashal --- Hi Rex, Per our conversation on IRC I have updated the SPEC and SRPM. Please review it. Once mate-common gets approved I can make mate-common a requirement for every other spec. We will also track any legality issues in the main tracker bug. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-common.spec SRPM: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-common-1.4.0-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: base files for building and installing MATE Desktop -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832816] Review Request: mckoi - Open Source Java SQL Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832816 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- Created attachment 598527 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=598527&action=edit runLocalTest result.txt runLocalTest result.txt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832816] Review Request: mckoi - Open Source Java SQL Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832816 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- test]$ sh ./runLocalTest.sh Script input from: script_in.txt Script output to: result.txt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 803558] Review Request: ehcache-core - Easy Hibernate Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803558 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Matt Spaulding --- (In reply to comment #4) > hi > > 3. Ask upstream to include a LICENSE file. Some of the test source files do > > not have license headers. You might mention that to them as well. > is available in src/assemble/EHCACHE-CORE-LICENSE.txt > http://ehcache.org/about/license Thanks for catching my mistake here. Didn't see that file. > > > 5. There is a newer version available (2.5.2). Not required; but if the > > change is trivial, you should update to the latest version. > there is a new version available > http://svn.terracotta.org/svn/ehcache/tags/ehcache-core-2.6.0 > the source rpm is available here http://gil.fedorapeople.org/ Looked at your new 2.6.0 package. Everything looks good and all issues are corrected. 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 832816] Review Request: mckoi - Open Source Java SQL Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832816 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- > c) test can not be run during build? test]$ sh ./testServerShutdown.sh Mckoi SQL Database ( 1.0.4 ) Copyright (C) 2000 - 2011 Diehl and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Use: -h for help. Mckoi SQL Database comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. See LICENSE.txt for details of the GPL License. java.sql.SQLException: Connection refused at com.mckoi.database.jdbc.TCPStreamDatabaseInterface.connectToDatabase(TCPStreamDatabaseInterface.java:76) at com.mckoi.database.jdbc.MDriver.connect(MDriver.java:586) at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:579) at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:221) at com.mckoi.runtime.McKoiDBMain.doShutDown(McKoiDBMain.java:131) at com.mckoi.runtime.McKoiDBMain.main(McKoiDBMain.java:211) test]$ sh ./runServerTest.sh java.sql.SQLException: Connection refused at com.mckoi.database.jdbc.TCPStreamDatabaseInterface.connectToDatabase(TCPStreamDatabaseInterface.java:76) at com.mckoi.database.jdbc.MDriver.connect(MDriver.java:586) at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:579) at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:221) at com.mckoi.tools.JDBCScriptTool.main(JDBCScriptTool.java:257) JDBCScriptTool [-jdbc JDBC_Driver_Class] [-url JDBC_URL] -u username -p password [-in Input_SQL_File] [-out Output_Result_File] If -in or -out are not specified then the tool uses System.in and System.out respectively. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832816] Review Request: mckoi - Open Source Java SQL Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832816
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
what's means imho?
> a) The not existence of src and demo package is inttional? (means *1) - imho
> it is more then worthy
yes
b) contrib directory is not worthy to be packed?
no unavailable deps package org.jboss.system
c) test can not be run during build?
> d) /./usr/share/java/MckoiSQLDB.jar is symlink to mckoi.jar. In that case I
> would recommand full version in mockoi-{version}.{release}.jar filename
not
can not do. see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames
> e) in javadoc package ther is "bug" I do not understand -
> /./usr/share/javadoc/mckoi/ contains javadoc and
> /./usr/share/doc/mckoi-javadoc-1.0.4/ contains licence. (also
> /./usr/share/doc/mckoi-1.0.4/ contains licence and readme for main package)
imho /./usr/share/javadoc/mckoi/ should be symlink to
/./usr/share/javadoc/mckoi-1.x.y/ which will then contains real javbadoc
see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
> f) there is directory doc in BUILD. It contains interesting information. IMHO
> they shoud go out in /./usr/share/doc/mckoi-1.0.4/ too (or whereevere you
> decide)
yes if only mckoi is packaged as as db
> g) Isnt worthy some kinf of shell launcher to jar so anybody can connect
> easily to db? (but here I have lack of mckoi db knowledge)
mckoi is packaged as library and not as db, for now i haven't interest to add a
launcher script
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823101] Review Request: erlang-riak_pipe - Riak Pipelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones --- I will take 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 823171] Review Request: erlang-eleveldb - Erlang LevelDB API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823171 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones --- I will take 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 839329] Review Request: python-virtualenv-clone - Script to clone virtualenvs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839329 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean --- Submitted for testing - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-virtualenv-clone -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831929] Review Request: grub-customizer - Grub Customizer is a graphical interface to configure the grub2/burg settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831929
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt ---
> 6. Added patch correcting FSF address in sources
This is just insane. First it seemed as if you only patched a single license
text file, but you patched all source files which is not your business as a
packager:
Please notice:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/*
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
-> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741529] Review Request: python-futures - Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741529 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741529] Review Request: python-futures - Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741529 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-futures-2.1.2-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741529] Review Request: python-futures - Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741529 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838344] Review Request: hokuyoaist - Hokuyo Laser SCIP driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838344
--- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters ---
Shouldn't the version be 3.0.0-0.3.20120707gitXX ?
I think you bumped the wrong number, if upstream is still 3.0.0.
Perhaps use the version in the source url to prevent this mistake in the
future:
Source0:
https://github.com/gbiggs/hokuyoaist/tarball/tags/%{version}/gbiggs-hokuyoaist-%{version}-g%{gitrev}.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 839329] Review Request: python-virtualenv-clone - Script to clone virtualenvs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839329 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830581] Review Request: jove - Jonathan's Own Version of Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830581 --- Comment #7 from Paul Wouters --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/jove/jove.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/jove/jove-4.16.0.73-3.fc16.src.rpm All issues mentioned fixed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839329] Review Request: python-virtualenv-clone - Script to clone virtualenvs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839329 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-virtualenv-clone Short Description: Script to clone virtualenvs Owners: ralph Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.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 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839329] Review Request: python-virtualenv-clone - Script to clone virtualenvs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839329
Pierre-YvesChibon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon ---
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.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
diff).
[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.
[-]: 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)
[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
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST 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.
[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 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]: 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 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
[Bug 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 Jeff Peeler changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Jeff Peeler --- Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR, although I'm sure Steve will sponsor this package as well. (See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Peeler --- Steve, I'll fully complete the above reviews now. Also, here is another review request that is a companion package for Heat, heat_jeos: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840636] New: Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 Bug ID: 840636 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: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jpee...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/heat-api/heat-rpms/master/heat_jeos.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/heat_jeos-1-1.src.rpm Description: Creates JEOS images for Heat, creates TDL files for use with oz, creates image files for use with libvirt/glance. Fedora Account System Username: jpeeler -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839329] Review Request: python-virtualenv-clone - Script to clone virtualenvs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839329 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr 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 820452] Review Request: mediawiki119 - updated mediawiki for EPEL-6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820452 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- mediawiki119-1.19.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mediawiki119-1.19.1-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820452] Review Request: mediawiki119 - updated mediawiki for EPEL-6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820452 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787713] Review request: FreeSOLID - A 3D collision detection C++ library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713 --- Comment #63 from Fedora Update System --- FreeSOLID-2.1.1-11.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FreeSOLID-2.1.1-11.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 787713] Review request: FreeSOLID - A 3D collision detection C++ library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713 --- Comment #62 from Fedora Update System --- FreeSOLID-2.1.1-11.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FreeSOLID-2.1.1-11.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #30 from Steven Dake --- Jeff, Please continue to provide an unofficial review. Thanks -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com --- Comment #29 from Steven Dake --- Nicolas, I'll sponsor you. To join the packager group you need to be able to do the following things: 1. provide competent reviews of other people's packages 2. produce high quality packaging that passes the guidelines prior to review 3. help coach packagers on trouble points in their packaging Read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group A package should follow the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Since you have submitted a package, I will ask you in the bugzilla to review a couple other people's packages. While you are not a packager, you can still provide reviews to demonstrate you are capable of providing a review of a new package. To execute a review, you would follow the review guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Some example reviews I have done are here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=79500&o1=equals&classification=Fedora&emailtype1=substring&query_format=advanced&emailassigned_to1=1&token=1338582948-9534ec43e4e74cdb0393ec72859aedfe&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=POST&bug_status=CLOSED&email1=sdake%40redhat.com&v1=fedora-review%2B&component=Package%20Review Once you have given a couple high quality reviews of other's packages, I'll review your package submission and we will get it beat into submission for Fedora. When your ready to review atleast two other packages, find some FE-NEEDSPONSOR packages and use the FedoraReview tool to review those packages. The FedoraReview tool can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake --- I'll sponsor you. Its nice that you already know the drill ;) Your reviews look pretty good, but unfortunately some fields are left blank in the fedora review tool. Please re-review the above packages completing the review. A [ ] doesn't tell the new packager the state of the requirement. Also, please provide a full review of rubygem-sshkey, rather then a "it looks good". Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741529] Review Request: python-futures - Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741529 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821404] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Steven Dake --- Vascom2, I'll sponsor you. To join the packager group you need to be able to do the following things: 1. provide competent reviews of other people's packages 2. produce high quality packaging that passes the guidelines prior to review 3. help coach packagers on trouble points in their packaging Read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group A package should follow the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Since you have submitted a package, I will ask you in the bugzilla to review a couple other people's packages. While you are not a packager, you can still provide reviews to demonstrate you are capable of providing a review of a new package. To execute a review, you would follow the review guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Some example reviews I have done are here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=79500&o1=equals&classification=Fedora&emailtype1=substring&query_format=advanced&emailassigned_to1=1&token=1338582948-9534ec43e4e74cdb0393ec72859aedfe&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=POST&bug_status=CLOSED&email1=sdake%40redhat.com&v1=fedora-review%2B&component=Package%20Review Once you have given a couple high quality reviews of other's packages, I'll review your package submission and we will get it beat into submission for Fedora. When your ready to review atleast two other packages, find some FE-NEEDSPONSOR packages and use the FedoraReview tool to review those packages. The FedoraReview tool can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787713] Review request: FreeSOLID - A 3D collision detection C++ library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-16 14:01:09 --- Comment #61 from MartinKG --- activated line "Requires: qhull" in file FreeSOLID.pc.in the package built successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4244530 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4244562 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4244574 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 Bug 785371 depends on bug 787713, which changed state. Bug 787713 Summary: Review request: FreeSOLID - A 3D collision detection C++ library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #10 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi --- Andreas needs to do the review. If I keep telling what things I find, at some point I've done the review, not Andreas. For you, and the package, that's fine. But for Andreas, the only thing that could be done then is decide he doesn't know how to be a Fedora Contributor and ask FESCo to put him on probation. (Which FESCo might or might not grant -- I really hate to go down that path so I try to get people on the right path before it gets to that state :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821404] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@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 831209] Review Request: parboiled - Java/Scala library providing parsing of input text based on PEGs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831209 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831209] Review Request: parboiled - Java/Scala library providing parsing of input text based on PEGs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831209 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- parboiled-1.0.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/parboiled-1.0.2-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741529] Review Request: python-futures - Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741529 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten --- Thanks for the very quick review! PS! Spec file was cached in browser it seems, time stamp is identical on srpm and spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-futures/ New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-futures Short Description: Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2 Owners: terjeros Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 Mikko Tiihonen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikko.tiiho...@iki.fi --- Comment #16 from Mikko Tiihonen --- With 0.5.3 sources and http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/sigil.spec the build works nicely when all the patches are commented out (the patches had already been applied upstream). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@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 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org Component|Package Review |0x Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Assignee|sd...@redhat.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@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 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 --- Comment #1 from Jeff Peeler --- I have already found my sponsor and will point him here. I have several package reviews currently in progress so that I can join the packager group: Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 Review Request: rubygem-sshkey https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] New: Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Bug ID: 840619 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: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jpee...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/heat-api/heat-rpms/master/heat.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/heat-4-2-src.rpm Description: Heat provides a REST API to orchestrate multiple composite cloud applications implementing the AWS CloudFormation API. Fedora Account System Username: jpeeler -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840447] Review Request: python26-configobj - Configuration file reading, writing, and validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840447 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python26-configobj-4.7.2-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-configobj-4.7.2-5.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840447] Review Request: python26-configobj - Configuration file reading, writing, and validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840447 Fedora Update System 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 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-cheetah-2.4.4-3.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840050] Review Request: python26-cheetah - Template engine and code-generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840050 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820452] Review Request: mediawiki119 - updated mediawiki for EPEL-6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820452 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski --- Looks like this has been built but no update filed. What's up? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831209] Review Request: parboiled - Java/Scala library providing parsing of input text based on PEGs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831209 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808258] Review Request: python-sh - Python module to simplify calling shell commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808258 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- python-sh-0.107-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837313] Review Request: gssproxy - A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313 --- Comment #9 from Guenther Deschner --- Sorry, package already built. Toshio, what in particular should I fix (and Andreas review) ? You mentioned an item in the files 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 840602] New: Review Request: maradns - Authoritative and recursive DNS server made with security in mind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602 Bug ID: 840602 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: maradns - Authoritative and recursive DNS server made with security in mind Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: zdzi...@irc.pl Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns.spec SRPM URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns-2.0.06-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MaraDNS is a package that implements the Domain Name Service (DNS), an essential internet service. MaraDNS has the following advantages: * Secure. * Supported. * Easy to use. * Small. * Open Source. Fedora Account System Username: ttorcz I'd like to revive package which got removed in February. I've based this spec on previously packaged maradns-1.3, which is beyond end of life. Thus, upgrade to 2.0. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823847] Review Request: simple-jndi - A JNDI implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823847 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- simple-jndi-0.11.4.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/simple-jndi-0.11.4.1-1.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 823847] Review Request: simple-jndi - A JNDI implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 831209] Review Request: parboiled - Java/Scala library providing parsing of input text based on PEGs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831209 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831228] Review Request: pegdown - Java library for Markdown processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831228 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839317] Review Request: jaxws-jboss-httpserver-httpspi - JBoss httpserver to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839317 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- jaxws-jboss-httpserver-httpspi-1.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jaxws-jboss-httpserver-httpspi-1.0.1-1.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
