[Bug 825143] Review Request: ibus-xkb - IBus XKB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825143 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Does this need any refresh now for current F18? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841483] Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 Fl@sh changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841483] New: Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 Bug ID: 841483 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: kaperan...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/F1ash/plasmaMailChecker/simple/kde-plasma-mail-checker.spec SRPM URL: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8621/4248621/kde-plasma-mail-checker-1.7.30-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Plasmoid should periodic check for new messages in configured accounts. Supported protocols: POP3/POP3S/IMAP4/IMAP4S + IMAP4_IDLE. Passwords for accounts stored in encrypted container. Plasmoid use KDE-notification for events about new mail. Support Akonadi (mimeType : "message/rfc822") resources monitoring (getting new mail). Fedora Account System Username: f1ash Addition: First package; need sponsor; succesful build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4248621 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841239] Review Request: sugar-story - an activity that uses images to prompt the learner to tell stories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841239 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #31 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Whoever want to learn packaging, he will try different packages or review different kind of package like perl, python, gnome or library packages. I think if anyone knows well packaging then he can finish 5 reviews in whole day easily. anyway, I consider above reply mean you don't want to review other 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 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #116 from Dan Mashal --- Leigh, Fair enough. But how would I install on f17 if I need a version of muffin that is not yet in the repo? Dan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #115 from leigh scott --- (In reply to comment #113) > TO DO: > > Please remove specific version requirements from the spec file. No, cinnamon has it's requirement > > Please correct the spelling errors in the spec file internel -> internal Yes I will correct this > Please work to fix the issue with F16 build. No, as I said th git build is too new to build on F16. > > Please work with upstream to get their source fixed so that an internal > patched, modified version is required, if possible. My patches aren't going upstream as they are packaging fixes for fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840551] Review Request: sugar-kuku - arithmetic education game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551 --- Comment #30 from Danishka Navin --- i came with a spirit to work on packaging.. Specially had an idea of packaging all the activities for fedora. but i feel.. i should give up this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #17 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Now everything is done correctly? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #64 from Ralf Corsepius --- FYI: The pkg-config enabled qhull-devel packages have just landed in Fedora 16's and Fedora 17's "update" repositories. Please reflect this change to the FreeSOLID 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 840878] 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 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 840551] Review Request: sugar-kuku - arithmetic education game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551 --- Comment #29 from Parag AN(पराग) --- From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Submitting_quality_new_packages "The sponsors that look at new package submissions often ask new packagers to do some package reviews in order to further show that they know what they're doing. If you do some reviews ahead of time, you can show the sponsors that you've both read these pages and understand the guidelines. Go ahead and link to other package review requests where you've left comments and reviews" Here meaning of "some reviews" is not defined and is upto sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #114 from Dan Mashal --- Correction to last line: Please work with upstream to get their source fixed so that an internal patched, modified version is NOT required, if possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #113 from Dan Mashal ---
Koji scratch builds:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4255909
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4255922
$ rpmlint cinnamon.spec
cinnamon.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_internel_version}
cinnamon.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
cinnamon.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_internal_version}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint cinnamon-1.4.1-0.4.git7959517.fc17.src.rpm
cinnamon.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_internel_version}
cinnamon.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
cinnamon.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_internel_version}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Licensing looks good. Koji scratch builds OK on F17 and F18, naming looks good.
F16 build failed:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4255924
I was unable to install the built RPM from Koji on f17 x86_64:
Error: Package: cinnamon-1.4.1-0.4.git7959517.fc17.x86_64
(/cinnamon-1.4.1-0.4.git7959517.fc17.x86_64)
Requires: muffin(x86-64) >= 1.0.4
Installed: muffin-1.0.3-3.fc17.x86_64 (@updates)
muffin(x86-64) = 1.0.3-3.fc17
Available: muffin-1.0.2-1.fc17.x86_64 (fedora)
muffin(x86-64) = 1.0.2-1.fc17
You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
** Found 1 pre-existing rpmdb problem(s), 'yum check' output follows:
mate-common-1.4.0-5.fc17.noarch is a duplicate with
mate-common-1.4.0-4.fc17.noarch
[root@f172 SPECS]# yum install ./cinnamon-1.4.1-0.4.git7959517.fc17.x86_64.rpm
^C
[root@f172 SPECS]# yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing muffin
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
updates-testing/metalink | 17 kB 00:00
updates-testing | 4.5 kB 00:00
updates-testing/primary_db | 978 kB 00:01
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
* fedora: dl.fedoraproject.org
* updates: dl.fedoraproject.org
* updates-testing: dl.fedoraproject.org
updates-testing/group_gz | 434 kB 00:00
No Packages marked for Update
[root@f172 SPECS]# yum install --enablerepo=updates-testing muffin
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
* fedora: dl.fedoraproject.org
* updates: dl.fedoraproject.org
* updates-testing: dl.fedoraproject.org
Package muffin-1.0.3-3.fc17.x86_64 already installed and latest version
Nothing to do
[root@f172 SPECS]#
TO DO:
Please remove specific version requirements from the spec file.
Please correct the spelling errors in the spec file internel -> internal
Please work to fix the issue with F16 build.
Please work with upstream to get their source fixed so that an internal
patched, modified version is required, if possible.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org Component|Package Review |0x Assignee|sd...@redhat.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake --- Jeff, need a python2-devel BR the heat_jeos dir appears unowned I'll provide a more complete review in the morning. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 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 #5 from Steven Dake --- Jeff, Please read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Specifically this package needs a python2-devel BR. The rest looks pretty good. I'll provide a more complete review in the morning. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #28 from Parag AN(पराग) --- You are asking me to get you sponsored based that you don't have time to review other packages? What if all new people coming with this mindset. Then, we will endup with so many package reviews waiting. This reviewing work not only demonstrate that you understand rpm packaging well but help other people who used to wait years and years to get first initial comment on their package review. So tell me who is pushing? There are reviews lying since years in Fedora and still some of them getting regularly updated but not yet finished. There is no precise definition given for sponsorship by FESCo. So its upto sponsor to decide criteria for sponsorship and I can see you are still not familiar with recent fedora packaging changes. So I asked to do reviews and its also written in sponsorship policy. You can even search in bugzilla that other sponsor not even approve the package before they can see contributor has done reviews. So if you have no time in next 2 weeks then you can resume work after that. Else, find someone who is already in packager group and he can take over these reviews and request fedora-cvs and build it in fedora. If you think my criteria of asking people to do 5 reviews is wrong then I will not proceed here and remove your packager request. Please reply so that I can add back FE-NEEDSPONSOR in your all reviews so that other sponsor can look into your reviews and then sponsor you. If I remember I didn't even sponsor my team members just because they need sponsorship and has not done any reviews. For me reviews are necessary to get sponsorship. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 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 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Component|0x |Package Review 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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake --- The reviews in comment #1 are outstanding. I'm convinced you know how to provide reviews. The next step is for me to review this package and then add you to the packagers group. After the review is completed, I will prompt you to submit a git scm request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785466] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Http - Horde HTTP libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785466 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Dan Mashal --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-Horde-Http Short Description: This package provides a set of classes for making HTTP requests. Owners: nb vicodan Branches: f16 f17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785466] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Http - Horde HTTP libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785466
Dan Mashal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Dan Mashal ---
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4255225
Licensing looks good. Koji scratch builds OK, naming looks good.
rpmlint:
[dan@f172 SPECS]$ rpmlint php-horde-Horde-Http.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[dan@f172 SPECS]$ rpmlint php-horde-Horde-Http-1.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
4255168 build (f17, php-horde-Horde-Http-1.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm) completed
successfully
4255225 build (f18, php-horde-Horde-Http-1.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm) completed
successfully
4255275 build (f16, php-horde-Horde-Http-1.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm) completed
successfully
You may want to look into these warnings (not sure if they matter):
+ /usr/bin/pear install --nodeps --packagingroot
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-horde-Horde-Http-1.1.0-1.fc16.noarch
php-horde-Horde-Http.xml
warning: channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Http-1.1.0 requires package
"channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Exception" (version >= 1.0.0, version <= 2.0.0,
excluded versions: 2.0.0)
warning: channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Http-1.1.0 requires package
"channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Support" (version >= 1.0.0, version <= 2.0.0,
excluded versions: 2.0.0)
channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Http-1.1.0 can optionally use package
"channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Test" (version >= 1.0.0, version <= 2.0.0,
excluded versions: 2.0.0)
channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Http-1.1.0 can optionally use PHP extension
"http"
install ok: channel://pear.horde.org/Horde_Http-1.1.0
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
BSD
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum Horde_Http-1.1.1.tgz
2e34f5965cc426571534684e4cbac576 Horde_Http-1.1.1.tgz
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of
[Bug 785493] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Cli - Horde Command Line Interface API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785493 kc8...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kc8...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from kc8...@gmail.com --- I'm not an official package reviewer. I did see something about the BuildRequires. It says php-channel(pear.horde.org). I searched the repos for that, and found the php-channel-horde. I installed that and the package built successfully. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785466] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Http - Horde HTTP libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785466 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785466] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Http - Horde HTTP libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785466 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.mas...@gmail.com 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 785606] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Test - Horde testing base classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785606 Bug 785606 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785493] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Cli - Horde Command Line Interface API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785493 Bug 785493 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785475] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Lock - Horde Resource Locking System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785475 Bug 785475 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #112 from Dan Mashal --- Thanks Leigh, I am looking at it now. Dan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785472] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Db - Horde Database Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785472 Bug 785472 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785483] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-SyncMl - API for processing SyncML requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785483 Bug 785483 depends on bug 785442, which changed state. Bug 785442 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785477] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Icalendar - iCalendar API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785477 Bug 785477 depends on bug 785442, which changed state. Bug 785442 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785483] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-SyncMl - API for processing SyncML requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785483 Bug 785483 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785492] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Controller - Horde Controller libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785492 Bug 785492 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785477] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Icalendar - iCalendar API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785477 Bug 785477 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785442] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-18 19:41:06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785488] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-View - Horde View API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785488 Bug 785488 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785466] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Http - Horde HTTP libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785466 Bug 785466 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785460] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Mime - Horde MIME Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785460 Bug 785460 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785468] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Image - Horde Image API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785468 Bug 785468 depends on bug 785455, which changed state. Bug 785455 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785472] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Db - Horde Database Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785472 Bug 785472 depends on bug 785442, which changed state. Bug 785442 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785455] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-18 19:41:13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785444] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Alarm - Horde Alarm Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785444 Bug 785444 depends on bug 785442, which changed state. Bug 785442 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785463] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Form - Horde Form API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785463 Bug 785463 depends on bug 785442, which changed state. Bug 785442 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Date - Horde Date package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 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 #16 from Jeff Peeler ---
For future reference, mktables.c and dxt_tables.h have no license header. Not a
problem, but might want to make it consistent.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[X]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 %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
[-]: 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.
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of
licensecheck see file: /home/jpeeler/reviews/821404-gimp-dds-
plugin/licensecheck.txt
[X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
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: 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.
[-]: 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).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[-]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bug
[Bug 841418] New: Review Request: prey - Open-source anti-theft solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841418 Bug ID: 841418 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: prey - Open-source anti-theft solution Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/prey/prey-1.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/prey/prey-0.5.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4253552 Fedora Account System Username: puiterwijk Description: Prey lets you keep track of your laptop, phone and tablet whenever stolen or missing -- easily and all in one place. It's lightweight, open source software that gives you full and remote control, 24/7. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Nick Bebout 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 785455] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 Nick Bebout 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 785471] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Stream-Wrapper - Horde Stream wrappers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785471 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-18 18:05:22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Bug 785455 depends on bug 785471, which changed state. Bug 785471 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Stream-Wrapper - Horde Stream wrappers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785471 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 785471] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Stream-Wrapper - Horde Stream wrappers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785471 Nick Bebout 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 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #22 from Jeff Peeler ---
Actually I did find one more thing when going through this, 1.3.1 is the
current release. Should probably bump the version.
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.
[-]: 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
[-]: 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.
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/jpeeler/reviews/831749-rubygem-sshkey/licensecheck.txt
[X]: 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.
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.
[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).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. NOTE: 1.3.1 released
[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.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
tran
[Bug 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 --- Comment #21 from Jeff Peeler --- The only thing I see left is to escape the %doc macro in your latest changelog entry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823967] Review Request: apacheds - Apache Directory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823967 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #111 from leigh scott --- Here my latest Spec file and srpm that I'm puuting forward for the review process, please ignore all previous versions. These will only build for F17 and F18!! SPEC: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon/11/cinnamon.spec SRPM: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon/11/cinnamon-1.4.1-0.4.git7959517.fc17.src.rpm F17 has a buildroot override at koji to enable you to build it if you wish. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #32 from Jeff Peeler ---
This is what I had in mind for the github handling:
http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec
Basically the source URL pointing to:
https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet/tarball/%{gitbranch}/%{github}-%{git}.tar.gz
where %{git} is a sha from master.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 #110 from Dan Mashal --- stilled/stalled* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841335] Review Request: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841335 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- New Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnusim8085/gnusim8085-2.spec New SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnusim8085/gnusim8085-1.3.7-2.fc17.src.rpm New Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4251625 I'm sorry I didn't do those simple things right. I have pulled in your suggestions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 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 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #109 from Dan Mashal --- I'm taking over this stilled review as per Leigh's request and Rex's blessing. I will be working with Leigh and if I have any questions I will work with Rex. There was no package review flag set on this bug at all and no formal reviewer. I will work on this tonight and will review the entire bug, comments and concerns from everyone. Thanks, Dan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841352] Review Request: ibus-table-wubi-98 - Wubi 98 table for ibus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841352 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838423] Review Request: zukiwi - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838423 Mattia Meneguzzo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mattia Meneguzzo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: zukiwi Short Description: Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell Owners: odysseus 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 841335] Review Request: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841335
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt ---
Perhaps instead of
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}*
use the more explicit
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/
to match the --docdir configure definition.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841335] Review Request: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841335 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt --- Created attachment 598987 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=598987&action=edit proposed spec file changes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841335] Review Request: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841335
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt ---
* Latest upstream release has been updated to. Good.
$ sha256sum gnusim8085-1.3.7.tar.gz
e09b56089276eed91fb9df3c1e7e2aa4bf091859cfc62612521b45617167d525
gnusim8085-1.3.7.tar.gz
* rpmlint output is clean.
> License: GPLv2
"GPLv2+" according to the source file preambles.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
$ find src -name \*.c|wc -l
31
$ grep "any later version" src/*.c|wc -l
31
$ find src -name \*.h|wc -l
31
$ grep "any later version" src/*.h|wc -l
31
> URL: http://gnusim8085.sourceforge.net
| We have moved to new domain. Please update your bookmark. You should be
| redirected to our new website in 10 seconds. If not please click here.
-> http://gnusim8085.org/
> BuildRequires:automake libtool
Apparently only needed because an autoconf recheck is triggered by the
"sed" based change to configure.in.
That made me curious. ;-)
There has been a crash failing to find the documentation files: bug 542945
The fix is a brute-force sed substitution without any guard:
> sed -i \
> "s|share/doc/\${PACKAGE}|share/doc/%{name}-%{version}|" \
> configure.in
> sed -i "s|/usr/local/doc/GNUSim8085|%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}|"
> src/callbacks.c
One ought to be careful with such "sed" substitution, because if they don't
match any longer, the command doesn't fail, and you don't notice. Hence it's
superior to add a safety-check, such as a separate "grep".
Anyway:
The first sed modifies the line
packagedocdir=share/doc/${PACKAGE}
in configure.in, but I could not find any other place where this variable would
be used.
The second sed replaces a hardcoded string that is no longer present
in version 1.3.7, but instead a different variable is used:
g_string_append (tutorial_text, PACKAGE_DOC_DIR);
and it is defined in src/Makefile.am as:
$ grep PACKAGE_DOC_DIR src/Makefile.am
-DPACKAGE_DOC_DIR=\"$(docdir)\"\
So, instead of the two sed substitutions, running configure like this redefined
PACKAGE_DOC_DIR:
%configure --docdir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
However, reading further the spec file, I found it to be dangerous. During
%install, it does
rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}
to remove _any_ installed files in /usr/share/doc (whatever may have been
installed there intentionally!), then it adds doc files
manually via %doc in the %files section. Why is that dangerous? The default
location for %doc files is %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/ which happily
conflicts with any files already installed in there. Using %doc to install doc
files overrides any files which are in that directory already.
"make install" already installs all documentation except for the
license file "COPYING". So, if that gets installed manually during
%install, everything would be available, and using %doc is not necessary
anymore.
> make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}
In your koji test build, I noticed the missing verbosity of compiler/linker
output. Adding V=1 to the make invocation fixes that, so one can see all the
build details.
> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
Superfluous, as a man page is available in there already. Command can be
removed.
> Summary: A 8085 Simulator
Not a blocker, but a little bit more verbose could be better:
Summary: Graphical simulator for 8085 assembly language
> %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz
Better: %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
The on-the-fly compression to gzip could change eventually or be
disabled/changed in a different build environment.
* Patch for suggested changes will follow.
* What do you think?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841352] Review Request: ibus-table-wubi-98 - Wubi 98 table for ibus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841352 Pierre-Yves Luyten changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|98 table for ibus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #27 from Danishka Navin --- if you can understand me correctly, is there a person who can move this to the build system other than myself ? I won't available for next week but i want to get the work do. Since we all work for the community and why the hell some one can do that on behalf of myself. I am not going to do any reviews within next two weeks as I have some other work to do. To be honest tomorrow morning I am going to a remote site, for a school lab project. Just try to understand what I am saying. Anyway I noticed that there is no such mandatory for doing 5 unofficial reviews and also some people did not any of review. So why do you pushing back? I do not want to add 'package manager' label to my profile but i want to contribute. Dear Parag, Working for day job and working for the community spirit is different. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #31 from Jeff Peeler ---
Will follow up with the source github url in another comment. It does appear
that I was wrong about find -exec simplifying the translations, so do as you
please.
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.
[-]: 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 Changelog in prescribed format. NOTE: the versioning may change based
on github url changes.
[X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[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 Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: 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 The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[?]: MUST Package installs properly. (trusting you here)
[X]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. NOTE: is python3-gobject
necessary? I have the extension installed on my system and that package is not
installed.
[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.
[?]: 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. NOTE: license in README.md.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[X]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Patch0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet_fix_gnome-
shell_version_required.patch) Patch1 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-
monitor-applet_fix_gettext_domain.patch) Source0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-
shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz)
[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 timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: see [!] and NOTES.
Rpmlint
-
[Bug 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 --- Comment #24 from MartinKG --- Michel, finally i need your approval for the review. %changelog * Wed Jul 18 2012 Martin Gansser - 2.1-11 - added missing build requirement kernel-headers SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-11.fc17/tntnet-2.1-11.fc17.src.rpm?a=nbJNcrhhSu0 Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/tntnet/tntnet-2.1-11.fc17/tntnet.spec?a=RxrHP0VmxnE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838423] Review Request: zukiwi - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838423
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann ---
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4250309
Rpmlint is silent so far, only:
$ rpmlint -i -v *
gnome-shell-theme-zukiwi.noarch: I: checking
gnome-shell-theme-zukiwi.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency
liberation-narrow-fonts
You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded
explicit Requires: tags.
Ignorable, because we have a noarch package, and usually rpm is unable to find
the correct runtime requirements.
Moreover, rpmlint doesn't see any documentation. Doesn't matter, we don't have
special docs for each subpackage and cannot provide them.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
GPLv3
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
41ec5e56acb40d9a04af2fc054e5039f zukiwi_by_lassekongo83-d56k4sl.zip
41ec5e56acb40d9a04af2fc054e5039f
zukiwi_by_lassekongo83-d56k4sl.zip.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Works fine on my system (metacity part not tested)
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
PACKAGE APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 841352] Review Request: -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841352 --- Comment #1 from Pierre-Yves Luyten --- This is the first package I'm building, thus I need a sponsor. Wubi 1998 version might be less used than 1986, still I think it would be great for lot of people. Also, installing this without package is really un-pleasant (the hardest might be to find the right link to source on the web). I was busy on other open-source stuff, but I shall provide koji builds sooon. I did small commits for gnome but not directly for fedora, mostly documentation. Also a small gnote patch https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=639938. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841352] New: Review Request: -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841352 Bug ID: 841352 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: - Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: p...@luyten.fr Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://py.luyten.fr/Publique/Fedora/ibus-table-wubi-98.spec SRPM URL: http://py.luyten.fr/Publique/Fedora/ibus-table-wubi-98-1-1.2.0.20091227.fc17.src.rpm Description: This ibus-table allows to use Wubi method (1998 version) to input chinese characters. Fedora already includes two ibus-table for 1986 version. The source package only generates an ibus-table from txt file. RPM installs two files, ibus-table and associated icon. Fedora Account System Username: pyluyten -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823234] Review Request: sugar-nutrition - A collection of nutrition games for sugar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823234 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- sugar-nutrition-4-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-nutrition-4-2.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 823234] Review Request: sugar-nutrition - A collection of nutrition games for sugar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823234 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- sugar-nutrition-4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-nutrition-4-2.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 823234] Review Request: sugar-nutrition - A collection of nutrition games for sugar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823234 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 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 nonamed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com --- Comment #108 from nonamed...@gmail.com --- -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841335] Review Request: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841335 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Extra information: This review request is meant for un-deprecating gnusim8085 as it is deprecated since 2011-07-25. The original review request was ticket #504077. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #26 from Danishka Navin --- i know but was it was not working on my Fedora 17 x86_64 box? i was using it as local user. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #107 from leigh scott --- (In reply to comment #106) > As you insist on a build for rawhide here it is, may god have mercy on your > souls (if you have one :-) ) > > SPEC: > http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon_rawhide/cinnamon. > spec > > > > SRPM: > http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon_rawhide/cinnamon-1. > 4.1-0.1.git7959517.fc18.src.rpm F18 koji build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4249906 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Rahul Sundaram changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|methe...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841335] Review Request: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841335 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@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 841335] New: Review Request: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841335 Bug ID: 841335 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: gnusim8085 - A 8085 Simulator Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnusim8085/gnusim8085-1.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnusim8085/gnusim8085-1.3.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4248884 Fedora Account System Username: puiterwijk Description: GNUSim8085 is a graphical simulator for Intel 8085 microprocessor assembly language. It has some very nice features including a keypad which can be used to write assembly language programs with much ease. It also has stack, memory and port viewers which can be used for debugging the programs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823889] Review Request: openjpa - Java Persistence 2.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- openjpa-2.2.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openjpa-2.2.0-2.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 823889] Review Request: openjpa - Java Persistence 2.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889 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 839064] Review Request: rubygem-stickshift-common - OpenShift Origin library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sd...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake --- file a bug against fedora review please -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #25 from Parag AN(पराग) --- I ran fedora-review command on this bug. I used fedora-review first time and it executed successfully. INFO: Done(/home/parag/Downloads/840551/sugar-kuku-4-6.fc17.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-i386) 16 minutes 25 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result State Changed: end Build completed ok -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #20 from Troy Dawson --- I have updated my informal reviews including findings from fedora-review ... or actually failures from fedora-review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839653 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839064] Review Request: rubygem-stickshift-common - OpenShift Origin library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064
--- Comment #6 from Troy Dawson ---
It's looking better.
First issue - Although you have a URL for the source, the tarball isn't there.
Second issue ... which I don't know if it's your fault or not.
I'm trying to use fedora-review to test this package. It will build in mock,
but then when it starts checking the binary rpm's it fails with the following
command.
--
Build completed
Run command: rpm -qpl
/tmp/common/rubygem-stickshift-common/results/rubygem-stickshift-common-0.13.1-2.git.85.1915eff.fc17.noarch.rpm
Exception down the road...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line
133, in run
self.__do_report()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line
79, in __do_report
self.__run_checks(self.bug.spec_file, self.bug.srpm_file)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line
105, in __run_checks
writedown=not Settings.no_report)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks_class.py", line
180, in run_checks
if test.is_applicable():
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks/ccpp.py", line 13,
in is_applicable
self.sources_have_files('*.c') or \
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/check_base.py", line 105,
in sources_have_files
sources_files = self.sources.get_files_sources()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/sources.py", line 86, in
get_files_sources
self.extract_all()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/sources.py", line 65, in
extract_all
source.extract()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/source.py", line 104, in
extract
if not self.rpmdev_extract(self.filename, self.extract_dir):
AttributeError: 'Source' object has no attribute 'filename'
Exception down the road...
-
This output come from fedora-review-0.2.0-1.fc17 but it also fails on the
latest from the git repo as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 #106 from leigh scott --- As you insist on a build for rawhide here it is, may god have mercy on your souls (if you have one :-) ) SPEC: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon_rawhide/cinnamon.spec SRPM: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/cinnamon_rawhide/cinnamon-1.4.1-0.1.git7959517.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840551] Review Request: sugar-kuku - arithmetic education game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551 --- Comment #24 from Parag AN(पराग) --- (In reply to comment #22) > anyway how these approved packages moving to build system? Once you raise fedora-cvs? flag, someone will create git module for your package in dist-git by changing flag to fedora-cvs+ Then you import the approved srpm in dist-git. I think you better first read all the links here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join then http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840037] Review Request:rubygem-stickshift-node - Application container runtime for OpenShift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840037 --- Comment #3 from Brenton Leanhardt --- I incorrectly linked to the binary RPM in my last comment. Here's the SRPM: http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-stickshift-node/0.14.1-2.git.98.1915eff/rubygem-stickshift-node-0.14.1-2.git.98.1915eff.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 839395] Review Request: rubygem-stickshift-controller - Rails engine for the OpenShift Broker API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839395 --- Comment #4 from Brenton Leanhardt --- I incorrectly linked to the binary RPM. Here's the SRPM: http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-stickshift-controller/0.14.2-1.git.73.1915eff/rubygem-stickshift-controller-0.14.2-1.git.73.1915eff.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 839064] Review Request: rubygem-stickshift-common - OpenShift Origin library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 --- Comment #5 from Brenton Leanhardt --- Opps, here it is: http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-stickshift-common/0.13.1-2.git.85.1915eff/rubygem-stickshift-common-0.13.1-2.git.85.1915eff.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 839064] Review Request: rubygem-stickshift-common - OpenShift Origin library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 --- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson --- Thank you for the update. Can you please put the src.rpm up there. You currently only have the binary (noarch) 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 817311] Review Request: miniupnpc - Library and tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817311 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- miniupnpc-1.6-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/miniupnpc-1.6-6.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
