[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 --- Comment #9 from Vasiliy Glazov --- OK. My first review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #91 from leigh scott --- (In reply to comment #90) > (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. Bug are not in the scope of a package review Now piss off and take your irrelevant comments elsewhere and don't bother commenting 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 840422] Review Request: rubygem-uglifier - Ruby wrapper for UglifyJS JavaScript compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840422 Bug 840422 depends on bug 738744, which changed state. Bug 738744 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-execjs - ExecJS lets you run JavaScript code from Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738744] Review Request: rubygem-execjs - ExecJS lets you run JavaScript code from Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-17 03:09:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738742] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-script - A package for the coffee-script Ruby gem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742 Bug 738742 depends on bug 738744, which changed state. Bug 738744 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-execjs - ExecJS lets you run JavaScript code from Ruby https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Should probably make summary and description match (use %{name} in both
> places instead of once using ${gem_name}).
If you are referring to %doc description, then usage of %{name} is quite common
pattern for Ruby 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 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vasc...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov --- 1. Remove %defattr [!]: 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 2. Correct or remove Group sugar-colordeducto.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 3. Correct changelog sugar-colordeducto.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 30-5-1 ['5-1.fc17', '5-1'] 4. Correct executable bit sugar-colordeducto.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sugar/activities/ColorDeducto.activity/mun.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 5. Correct end of line encoding sugar-colordeducto.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sugar-colordeducto-5/README.txt And run rpmlint check for spec, srpm and all rpm 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 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 --- Comment #10 from Vasiliy Glazov --- And second review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840422] Review Request: rubygem-uglifier - Ruby wrapper for UglifyJS JavaScript compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840422 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch --- rubygem-execjs is in Fedora. I have tried the koji build [1] and it works. So I APPROVE this package. [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4245622 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840422] Review Request: rubygem-uglifier - Ruby wrapper for UglifyJS JavaScript compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840422 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Thanks you for the review! It's sometimes hard to find a reviewer who even does his own koji scratch build ;) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-uglifier Short Description: Ruby wrapper for UglifyJS JavaScript compressor 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 807479] Review Request: spacewalk-setup-jabberd - Tools to setup jabberd for Spacewalk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807479 --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý --- > I assume rpm fails on finding this dependency automatically, it's a common > problem on noarch packages. Otherwise you hadn't added it explicitely. Am I > right? Yes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749673] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-reviews - Eclipse Mylyn code review integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749673 --- Comment #7 from Severin Gehwolf --- Sure, I can still do the review. Keep 'em comming :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829713] Review Request: grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 --- Comment #11 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/grive/master/grive.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/grive/0.2.0/2.fc18.R/src/grive-0.2.0-2.fc18.R.src.rpm Full pass fedora-review and can be compiled for rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838771] Review Request: ghc-NumInstances - Instances of numeric classes for functions and tuples
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838771 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@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 803558] Review Request: ehcache-core - Easy Hibernate Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803558 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ehcache-core-2.6.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ehcache-core-2.6.0-1.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 803558] Review Request: ehcache-core - Easy Hibernate Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803558 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 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #2 from Danishka Navin --- Vasiliy, attached new build fixed #1, #2 and #3 for #4 and #5 since i am not the upstream maintainer what should i do other than contacting him? http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto-5-2.fc17.src.rpm http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto.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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.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 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837313] Review Request: gssproxy - A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schneider ---
--- gssproxy.spec.orig 2012-07-13 12:46:58.0 +0200
+++ gssproxy.spec 2012-07-16 21:33:02.740748184 +0200
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
%description
-A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling
+A proxy for GSSAPI credential handling.
%prep
%setup -q
@@ -67,13 +67,14 @@
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%doc COPYING
%{_unitdir}/gssproxy.service
%{_sbindir}/gssproxy
%dir %{gsspstatedir}
%attr(755,root,root) %dir %{pipepath}
%attr(755,root,root) %dir %{pubconfpath}
-%attr(700,root,root) %dir /%{_sysconfdir}/gssproxy
-%attr(0600,root,root) %config(noreplace)
/%{_sysconfdir}/gssproxy/gssproxy.conf
+%attr(700,root,root) %dir %{_sysconfdir}/gssproxy
+%attr(0600,root,root) %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/gssproxy/gssproxy.conf
%{_mandir}/man5/gssproxy.conf.5*
%{_mandir}/man8/gssproxy.8*
For a full review with every step documented you have to wait till tomorrow.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
First of all I'd recommend you looking at the spec file of jetty. It is a
package with many submodules and structure similar to truezip.
Things that will need to be fixed:
1) JAR files must be installed into a subdirectory.
Quoting from the guidelines: "If the number of provided JAR files
exceeds two, you MUST place them into a sub-directory named %{name}."
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Installation_directory
2) POM files have incorrect names. It must be JPP.%{name}-${module}.pom
instead of JPP-%{name}-${module}.pom (note the dot after JPP part).
Quoting from the guidelines: "The name of the file should follow the
following convention: JPP[.]-jarname.pom,
where jarname is the name of the jar without the .jar suffix."
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java/JPPMavenReadme#POM_file_names
3) %add_maven_depmap calls need -f flag. See jetty package for example.
See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#depmap_macro
4) Versioned dependencies should have version requirement in form of
"= %{version}-%{release}" instead of "= %{version}"
Some other suggestions:
5) You don't need to specify "Group: Development/Libraries" all the
time -- it's inherited from the previously defined package.
6) I'm not sure about inter-module dependencies, they look quite
inconsistent. I'm not saying they are wrong, but you can rethink them.
I added two dependency graphs I used. The first is the original one,
the second is transitively-reduced (but equivalent) one.
http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/truezip.svg
http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/truezip-red.svg
Once you fix the above problems (at least from 1 to 4) I can proceed
with the full 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 840551] Review Request: sugar-kuku - arithmetic education game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831228] Review Request: pegdown - Java library for Markdown processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831228 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- pegdown-1.1.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pegdown-1.1.0-1.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 831228] Review Request: pegdown - Java library for Markdown processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831228 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 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #3 from Vasiliy Glazov --- 4. If this does not affect functionality you should make chmod +x for mun.py in %prep section. 5. See here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding And of course report it to developer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #1 from Danishka Navin --- updated the spec and tested for rpmlint against spec, srpm and rpm http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor.spec http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor-6-2.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 840374] Review Request: gujaratilexicon-kalapi-fonts - OpenType sanserif font for Gujarati script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840374 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840740] Review Request: ibus-typing-booster - Auto completion for ibus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840740 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov --- You forget correct #1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #5 from Danishka Navin --- Thanks Vasiliy! fixed both issues :) attached spec and srpm, that fixed #4 and #5 http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto.spec http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto-5-3.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 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #6 from Danishka Navin --- i do not see any error or warning at 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 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #7 from Danishka Navin --- [danishka@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -vi SPECS/sugar-colordeducto.spec SPECS/sugar-colordeducto.spec: I: checking-url http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/ColorDeducto/ColorDeducto-5.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [danishka@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -vi SRPMS/sugar-colordeducto-5-3.fc17.src.rpm sugar-colordeducto.src: I: checking sugar-colordeducto.src: I: checking-url http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4221 (timeout 10 seconds) sugar-colordeducto.src: I: checking-url http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/ColorDeducto/ColorDeducto-5.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [danishka@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -vi RPMS/noarch/sugar-colordeducto-5-3.fc17.noarch.rpm sugar-colordeducto.noarch: I: checking sugar-colordeducto.noarch: I: checking-url http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4221 (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [danishka@localhost rpmbuild]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Run fedora-review and you see tha you forget remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #6 from Michael Schwendt --- The only requirement is to inform upstream. Patching the source files does not add any value, because it doesn't affect the built rpms. None of the patched source files enters the built rpms. The src.rpm includes the unpatched source tarball plus the optional patch. It could even be that the next upstream release removes source files, and then you would need to regenerate your patch, or it adds files and your patch would be out-of-date. The "if deemed suitable" is the catch-all for files other than the original licensing terms, which may be a README or documentation that points at the FSF postal address. Correcting that may make sense in a similar way you would find it suitable to correct an updated/wrong web page URL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from Vasiliy Glazov --- OK. Should I remove patch now? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 --- Comment #9 from Danishka Navin --- fixed the %defattr issue http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto-5-4.fc17.src.rpm http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto.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 823889] Review Request: openjpa - Java Persistence 2.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889 Patryk Obara changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Patryk Obara --- [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246152 *** 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 830581] Review Request: jove - Jonathan's Own Version of Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830581 Rich Mattes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Rich Mattes --- Great, then this package is APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 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 --- 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 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
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda ---
The "Obsoletes:" tag should contain the whole release, so:
Obsoletes: %{pkgname} < 1.4.0-4.20120717hg80ee24
is probably the right way to do it.
Otherwise the package looks nice, so it is APPROVED. Please fix the Obsoletes
tag and don't forget to retire django-threaded-multihost properly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ger...@ryan.lt) Flags|needinfo?(ger...@ryan.lt) | --- Comment #4 from Gerard Ryan --- I tried removing the bundled subset of objectweb-asm, and getting it to rely on the Fedora packaged objectweb-asm, but it didn't work. It seems that there's some stuff in there that never made it upstream. The problem code was introduced in the 2.2.0.Alpha6 tag, but the jbossxb dependency on jboss-reflect is based on the 2.0.2.GA tag. The previous stable release before 2.2.0.Alpha6 was 2.0.4.GA. I've managed to build both 2.2.0.Alpha5, and 2.0.2.GA (2.0.4.GA depends on some other old stuff that I can't even find). Since 2.2.0.Alpha5 is exactly that: a fifth alpha of nine alpha versions; I'm first going to propose 2.0.2.GA. jbossxb builds fine against it. If you think 2.2.0.Alpha5 would be preferable, let me know. Thanks! Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-1/jboss-reflect.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-1/jboss-reflect-2.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Re-reviewing 2.0.2.GA from scratch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832130] Review Request: cups-filters - OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130 Jiri Popelka changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||840830 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- 2 issues found: [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit4 seems to be mising. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License field states "LGPLv2+ and BSD", but there is nothing BSD-licensed. The license tag should therefore be just "LGPLv2+". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832130] Review Request: cups-filters - OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130 --- Comment #2 from Jiri Popelka --- version 1.0.19 - lot of changes, mainly switching build system to autotools. Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/cups-filters.spec SRPM URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/cups-filters-1.0.19-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #11 from Steven Dake --- Vasiliy, Review in comment #9 is a bit odd. You ask the package review reporter t o run "fedora review". It is the packager reviewer (ie your) job to run fedora review. The second review looks pretty good. Could you run through fedora review with them, then once they look solid, I'll finish reviewing your package? 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 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #10 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package 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.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]: 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.
[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", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)" For
detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/vascom/840425-sugar-
colordeducto/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (ColorDeducto-5.tar.bz2)
[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.
[ ]: 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 timestam
[Bug 818943] Review Request: jtds - SQL Server and Sybase JDBC driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818943 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej --- Taking 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 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 --- Comment #12 from Vasiliy Glazov --- I understand about fedora-review. And I think review 840425 is done. The package meets all requirements except using macro in Source0. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738742] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-script - Ruby CoffeeScript Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bkab...@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |rubygem-coffee-script - A |rubygem-coffee-script - |package for the |Ruby CoffeeScript Compiler |coffee-script Ruby gem | --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Since Fotios has been inactive for quite some time, I'll take this review over. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840878] New: Review Request: liberation-narrow-fonts - Sans-serif Narrow fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Arial Narrow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840878 Bug ID: 840878 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: Review Request: liberation-narrow-fonts - Sans-serif Narrow fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Arial Narrow Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: psatp...@redhat.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Scratch build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246404 SRPM Url : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/liberation-narrow-fonts-1.07.2-7.fc17.src.rpm SPEC Url : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/liberation-narrow-fonts.spec Additional Information: - liberation-fonts-2.00.0 upstream version is licensed under OFL. - Due to licensing problem of Liberation Sans Narrow cant keep this package together with liberation-fonts. - This is one of the existing subpackage of package liberation-fonts-1.07.2-6. - In future if licensing problem of Liberation Sans Narrow gets resolved then we can orphan this package and can provide it as a subpackage of liberation-fonts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832130] Review Request: cups-filters - OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130
Bug 832130 depends on bug 840830, which changed state.
Bug 840830 Summary: Ship %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ijs.pc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840830
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738742] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-script - Ruby CoffeeScript Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742 --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- So here are the updated spec and srpm, I created them completely from scratch: SPEC: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/coffee-script/rubygem-coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/coffee-script/rubygem-coffee-script-2.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Ruby CoffeeScript is a bridge to the JS CoffeeScript compiler. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246436 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #13 from Troy Dawson ---
So, I think I have my specfile fixed up with all of your (both Jeff and Vit's)
recommendations. Those macro's do make it look much better.
But I am not able to figure out this one recommendation
${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/'
Where am I doing that?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #14 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> But I am not able to figure out this one recommendation
>
> ${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/'
>
> Where am I doing that?
You are using ./%{gem_dir} on several places, while .%{gem_dir} should be
enough.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785471] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Stream-Wrapper - Horde Stream wrappers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785471 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet --- Blockers fixed. == 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 785455] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet --- Blockers fixed. == 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 823889] Review Request: openjpa - Java Persistence 2.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openjpa Short Description: Java Persistence 2.0 API 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 838568] Review Request: rubygem-abrt - ABRT support for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838568 --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch --- Hi, I prepared updated packages with latest upstream version. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-abrt.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-abrt-0.0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246508 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #92 from Dan Mashal --- Seriously 7 months later, and this has gone nowhere. Please remove yourself. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Rich Mattes --- The git tag says version 3.0.0, but the CMakeLists.txt contains a version of 4.0.0. Since the libraries, headers, and pkgconfig are all versioned off of the number in the CMake scripts, I opted to use the version in the code rather than the git tag. I will file a bug upstream asking for clarification. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #7 from Gerard Ryan --- Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-2/jboss-reflect.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-2/jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm > org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit4 seems to be mising. added to BR > The license tag should therefore be just "LGPLv2+". Done. 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
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 jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.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-2.0.2-2.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-2.0.2.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-javadoc-2.0.2-2.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.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patc
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #9 from Gerard Ryan --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-reflect Short Description: JBoss Reflection 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839742] Review Request: perl-Rose-Object - Simple object base class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jples...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
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
[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 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.
[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.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all
[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 --- Comment #13 from Steven Dake --- Vasiliy, I see in 840425 you did provide a full review in comment #10. Unfortunately many of the [ ] are empty, which leaves the impression to the git admins that the review is still pending. You need to make sure to fill out each field (notice - for N/A). Could you take another spin at that one? overall looking good. 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 738742] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-script - Ruby CoffeeScript Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch ---
* The test should be expanded in %check section
- I would prefer if the test suite is expanded in the %check section, since
in that case, you will avoid the RPM polution. Although admittedly, the
%patch macro does not work there, but you can use something like:
cat %{PATCH0} | patch -p1
Since this is just minor nit and the package looks reasonable otherwise, I
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 738742] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-script - Ruby CoffeeScript Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Thanks, I will fix this before importing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-coffee-script Short Description: Ruby CoffeeScript Compiler 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 823171] Review Request: erlang-eleveldb - Erlang LevelDB API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823171 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones --- This is looking good, just one rpmlint error of concern? erlang-eleveldb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: basho-eleveldb-1.1.0-0-g7790751.tar.gz erlang-eleveldb.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-eleveldb.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/eleveldb-1.1.0/priv/eleveldb.so <<=== erlang-eleveldb.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. I also noticed you had the tests commented out - they all passed here however. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 --- Comment #12 from Darryl L. Pierce --- Please, can we wrap up this package review? I understand that other tasks can pull you away, but it seems that I've met all review expectations and would like to get this package 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 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 --- Comment #17 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Version 1.0-2 fails to build in mock: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246613 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813842] Review Request: glfw , A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.mas...@gmail.com 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 785442] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet --- Created attachment 598669 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=598669&action=edit php-horde-Horde-Date-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785442] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Remi Collet --- No blocker. Please consider updating BR php-pear to version 1.7.0 (from package.xml). Others implicitly requires could be add, but at your choice. == 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 823101] Review Request: erlang-riak_pipe - Riak Pipelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101
Brendan Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones ---
I'm assuming this is being built for EPEL5.
This package is APPROVED.
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.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (basho-riak_pipe-1.1.2-0-g6442123.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the pa
[Bug 829971] Review Request: samplv1 -A polyphonic sampler synthesizer with stereo fx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829971 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones --- Thanks for the review! Upstream have released a newer version, thus the source error. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: samplv1 Short Description: polyphonic sampler synthesizer with stereo fx Owners: bsjones 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 830664] Review Request: Add64 - an additive synthesizer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: Add64 Short Description: an additive synthesizer for JACK Owners: bsjones 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 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #15 from Troy Dawson ---
OK, I see that now.
Those sections I took straight out of the ruby packaging guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
Maybe we should update that section so it is more consistant. So they are
either all one way or another. Not part doing .%{gem_dir} and part doing
./%{gem_dir}
But, either way, I'll update my 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 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #16 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Those sections I took straight out of the ruby packaging guidelines.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
>
> Maybe we should update that section so it is more consistant. So they are
> either all one way or another. Not part doing .%{gem_dir} and part doing
> ./%{gem_dir}
Ups, good catch. I'll discuss it with FPC. Sorry for confusion and thank you
for pointing it out :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840425] Review Request: sugar-colordeducto - learning activity to improve students skills to deducing logic and learning colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Thanks Vasiliy for your review. Koji scratch build -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246498 Suggestions: 1) As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses License should be GPLv3+ APPROVED. Sponsoring someone needs that person to do some unofficial reviews like Vasiliy done above. Have you done any package reviews? If yes then comment here that bug so that I can have a look at it and then sponsor 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Review: + koji scratch build ->http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246639 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 03a04f1089be6d54c056d70a32d97018db34d46e xoEditor-6.tar.bz2 03a04f1089be6d54c056d70a32d97018db34d46e ../SOURCES/xoEditor-6.tar.bz2 - License is GPLv3. suggestions: 1) Change the license tag to GPLv3+ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses 2) Remove the following line from spec %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #4 from Bill Pemberton --- Rose::Object::MakeMethods was originally filtered from requires because it would create a circular depandancy. This was quite a few rpm versions ago (I've used essentially these same specs locally for years). It appears not to cause a problem now, so I've removed it. I'd like leave Class:XSAccessor out of the requires. It's optional for Rose::Object and would prevent Rose::Object from being in epel6 since Class:XSAccessor is not in epel6. Also, could you tell me how you are generating the missing requires? I'd like to know so I can catch these ahead of time. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object-0.859-5.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 813842] Review Request: glfw , A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt ---
> BuildRequires: gcc, make, libX11, mesa-libGL, mesa-libGLU
>
> I have try to build without libX11, mesa-libGL, mesa-libGLU and rpm
> do not found the dependencies
What does that mean? What failure and when? Please explain. It's unusual that
your BuildRequires do not contain "libX11-devel mesa-libGL-devel
mesa-libGLU-devel" instead.
> %packagedevel
> BuildRequires: libX11-devel, mesa-libGL-devel, mesa-libGLU-devel
There they are! That's not a good place where to put BuildRequires. For
optional (!) subpackages, it may be suitable to mention the additional BR near
to the subpackage section of the spec file. But for essential subpackages such
as -devel that only adds confusion. As could be seen during this review. ;)
> Curently i provides static lib as shared lib build is broken
How is it broken? Why do you include the shared lib in the package if you know
it's broken?
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> %build
> make %{?_smp_mflags} x11
>
> ...
>
> %install
> make %{?_smp_mflags} x11-dist-install PREFIX=/usr LIBDIR=%{_lib}
> DESTDIR=%{buildroot} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
That asks for a closer look. Why do you add CFLAGS for "install" but not
"build". Nothing ought to be compiled anymore in the %install 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 823101] Review Request: erlang-riak_pipe - Riak Pipelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov --- Thanks for reviewing this! I'm considering building it for EL5 but don't have any plans for that so far. that's why all EL5-related messages should be addressed. So before importing I'm going to * Drop explicit BuildRoot * Drop %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Drop %clean target * Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from the %install section New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-riak_pipe Short Description: Riak Pipelines Owners: peter Branches: 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 830664] Review Request: Add64 - an additive synthesizer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones --- Peter, its come to my attention that there is a manual for this software - do you see any issue with me including this in a docs subpackage? http://sourceforge.net/projects/add64/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 840551] Review Request: sugar-kuku - arithmetic education game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Review: + koji scratch build ->http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246775 - rpmlint on rpms gave sugar-kuku.noarch: W: no-documentation sugar-kuku.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/sugar/activities/KukuAnakula.activity/kuku_config.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) a424a2ed5995262aa88f2a926f06348f2b8f64fd kuku_anakula-4.xo a424a2ed5995262aa88f2a926f06348f2b8f64fd ../SOURCES/kuku_anakula-4.xo - License is GPLv3. suggestions: 1) Change the license tag to GPLv3+ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses 2) Remove the following lines from spec rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %defattr(-,root,root,-) 3)Good to add documentation files as suggested in above comment. 4) fix the rpmlint error by using http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Add_shebang in %prep. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819134] Review Request: python-okaara - python command line user interface development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134 Jay Dobies changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-17 12:35:51 --- Comment #24 from Jay Dobies --- Builds completed in koji, closing as per the new package process 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 840374] Review Request: gujaratilexicon-kalapi-fonts - OpenType sanserif font for Gujarati script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840374 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Review: + koji scratch build ->http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4242812 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 4ed99a48f95abfccad7e60d04cdc47d36220fa3b font-kalapi-0.1.tar.gz 4ed99a48f95abfccad7e60d04cdc47d36220fa3b ../SOURCES/font-kalapi-0.1.tar.gz + License is OFL. + Follows packaging guidelines. suggestions: 1) I suggest to drop foundry name used as gujaratilexicon considering policy The foundryname- prefix can optionally be skipped: * for entities that never released more than one font family 2) cp commands should preserve timestamp by using it as "cp -p" 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 830664] Review Request: Add64 - an additive synthesizer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to comment #4) > Peter, its come to my attention that there is a manual for this software - > do you see any issue with me including this in a docs subpackage? > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/add64/files/ No, I don't have any objections, but you have to adjust License tag accordingly (any of the content/documentation licenses or "Redistributable without modifications"). I advise you to consult with the author regarding it. * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Documentation_Licenses * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Content_Licenses -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820548] Review Request: jasperreports - Report-generating tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820548 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- jasperreports-4.0.2-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jasperreports-4.0.2-3.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 823101] Review Request: erlang-riak_pipe - Riak Pipelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101 Peter Lemenkov 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 823171] Review Request: erlang-eleveldb - Erlang LevelDB API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823171 Peter Lemenkov 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 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #17 from Troy Dawson --- I have updated my spec and src.rpm file with the changes suggested. Spec URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey.spec SRPM URL: http://www.yortnoswad.org/packages/f17/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-4.fc17.src.rpm Rpmlint output: [me@vm-64f17]$ rpmlint rubygem-sshkey.spec /home/quake/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-4.fc17.src.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rubygem-sshkey-doc-1.3.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm 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 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [me@vm-64f17]$ rpmlint rubygem-sshkey rubygem-sshkey-doc 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 823101] Review Request: erlang-riak_pipe - Riak Pipelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101 Bug 823101 depends on bug 652598, which changed state. Bug 652598 Summary: Review Request: erlang-riak_core - Distributed systems infrastructure used by Riak https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652598 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
