[Bug 838540] Review Request: gfal2-plugin-xrootd - Provides xrootd access for GFAL2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838540
Danishka Navin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danis...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Danishka Navin ---
Here is my informal review
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)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.1.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/gfal2-plugins/libgfal_plugin_xrootd.so
Generic
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: 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
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: 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.
[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 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.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.1.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint gfal2-plugin-xrootd-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/danishka/838540/gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.1.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 1aebe31ff5116aa1ab727fd5da2f6405
MD5SUM upstream package : 1aebe31ff5116aa1ab727fd5da2f6405
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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 Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[ ]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary
[Bug 842679] Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842679 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-27 02:50:29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843470] Review Request: rubygem-sass-rails - Sass adapter for the Rails asset pipeline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843470 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-27 02:49:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842101] Review Request: sugar-yupana - A counting and calculating device used by the Incan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842101 --- Comment #1 from Danishka Navin --- fixed mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-yupana/sugar-yupana.spec http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-yupana/sugar-yupana-5-2.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 839730] Review Request: sugar-chart - Sugar Activity for create charts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839730
--- Comment #5 from Danishka Navin ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[ ]: 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 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.
[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 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.
[ ]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint sugar-chart-6-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
sugar-chart.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint sugar-chart-6-1.fc18.src.rpm
sugar-chart.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/danishka/839730/Chart.activity-6.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 6c1e61ac93b9407c9c6cb37de38d4085
MD5SUM upstream package : 6c1e61ac93b9407c9c6cb37de38d4085
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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 Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0: http://germanrs.fedorapeople.org/Sugar/sugar-
chart/Chart.activity-6.tar.gz (Chart.activity-6.tar.gz ) Patch0: remove-
shebang (remove-shebang)
[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:
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint sugar-chart-6-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
sugar-chart.n
[Bug 843695] New: Review Request: gecode - Generic constraint development environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843695 Bug ID: 843695 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: gecode - Generic constraint development environment Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jd...@aquezada.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/gecode/gecode.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/gecode/gecode-3.7.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Gecode is a toolkit for developing constraint-based systems and applications. Gecode provides a constraint solver with state-of-the-art performance while being modular and extensible. Fedora Account System Username: jdunn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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: kalapi-fonts - OpenType sanserif font for Gujarati script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840374 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen --- Strange there is no devel entry on: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/kalapi-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 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 --- Comment #11 from Jeff Peeler --- Removed 3 blocking issues above. Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/heat-api/heat-rpms/master/heat_jeos.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/heat_jeos-1-4.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 841418] Review Request: prey - Open-source anti-theft solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841418
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> and I wonder which OS dependant
> files you mean, as it is just a bunch of bash scripts?
The FHS defines datadir as "read-only architecture-independent data"
Note the "data" and "architecture-independent":
=> These files are arguably "non-arch-independent":
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/functions
%attr(644, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/prey-config.glade
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/prey-config.py*
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/settings
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/bin/sendEmail
(The idea behind datadir (/usr/share) is them begin sharable between different
OSes/architectures, e.g. through nfs mounts)
=> Theses files are executable:
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/functions
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/prey-config.py*
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/settings
%attr(755, -, -) %{_datadir}/%{name}/platform/linux/bin/sendEmail
They aren't data, they are executables and therefore do not belong into
%{_datadir} but should be placed into %{_libdir}/%{name} or
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}
That said, a simple solution would be to install all these files into
%{_libdir}/%{name} instead of %{_datadir}/%{name}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843678] Review Request: sugar-castle - A game of discovery and strategy inspired by the Adventure games of the 70s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843678 Danishka Navin 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 843678] New: Review Request: sugar-castle - A game of discovery and strategy inspired by the Adventure games of the 70s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843678 Bug ID: 843678 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: sugar-castle - A game of discovery and strategy inspired by the Adventure games of the 70s Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: danis...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-castle/sugar-castle.spec SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-castle/sugar-castle-23-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: A game of discovery and strategy inspired by the Adventure games of the 70s. http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4397 Fedora Account System Username: snavin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788067] Review Request: utouch-evemu - Event Device Query and Emulation Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788067 Peter Hutterer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mc...@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 825865] Review Request: sslsplit - Transparent and scalable SSL/TLS interception
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825865 --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Please note: fedora-review was done on an SRPM where I removed the call to make check, since my system does not has IPv6 connectivity. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825865] Review Request: sslsplit - Transparent and scalable SSL/TLS interception
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825865
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
- When in a mock build, %check needs openssl, maybe that should be a
BuildRequire?
- On a system with no IPv6 network, the tests fail:
Cannot resolve address '::1' port '10443': Name or service not known
Cannot resolve address '::1' port '10443': Name or service not known
Cannot resolve address '::1' port '10443': Name or service not known
...
97%: Checks: 105, Failures: 0, Errors: 3
- fedora-review output:
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: 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
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (2 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)" For detailed output of
[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]: 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
[Bug 767649] Review Request: lcm - Lightweight communications and marshaling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767649 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System --- lcm-0.9.0-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcm-0.9.0-6.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825865] Review Request: sslsplit - Transparent and scalable SSL/TLS interception
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825865 --- Comment #5 from Paul Wouters --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/sslsplit/sslsplit.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/sslsplit/sslsplit-0.4.4-2.fc17.src.rpm * Fri Jul 27 2012 Paul Wouters - 0.4.4-2 - Fix missing buildrequire for check-devel - Run make check - No need to compress man pages - No mixing of macro styles -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825865] Review Request: sslsplit - Transparent and scalable SSL/TLS interception
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825865 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||puiterw...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- I will review 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 767649] Review Request: lcm - Lightweight communications and marshaling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767649 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System --- lcm-0.9.0-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcm-0.9.0-6.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 767649] Review Request: lcm - Lightweight communications and marshaling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767649 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 825865] Review Request: sslsplit - Transparent and scalable SSL/TLS interception
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825865 --- Comment #3 from Paul Wouters --- ecc is banned from Fedora/RHEL for legal (patent) reasons. I'll dizup macro style and remove compression. Though i think install is a little overkill :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841003] Review Request: mate-corba - CORBA Object Request Broker for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841003 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- mate-corba-1.4.0-8.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-corba-1.4.0-8.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 841003] Review Request: mate-corba - CORBA Object Request Broker for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841003 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- mate-corba-1.4.0-8.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-corba-1.4.0-8.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 841003] Review Request: mate-corba - CORBA Object Request Broker for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841003 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 841418] Review Request: prey - Open-source anti-theft solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841418 --- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Thanks for all the comments, I am sorry if my answers were harsh and non-welcoming. I have looked into the locations, and after re-reading the FHS, I have placed the scripts in libexecdir/prey, and all of the config files in /etc/sysconfig/prey. I also added the check for hotspot.txt. new Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/prey/prey.spec new SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/prey/prey-0.5.3-3.fc17.src.rpm new Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4332846 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840239] Review Request: transmageddon - Video transcoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840239 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||transmageddon-0.21-2.fc17 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-26 19:00:24 --- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember --- Package imported and built. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 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 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:38:38 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- pegdown-1.1.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830812] Review Request: paulstretch - an audio time stretching utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830812 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- paulstretch-2.2.2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #88 from Fedora Update System --- mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:36:44 --- Comment #87 from Fedora Update System --- mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842066] Review Request: sidc - A VLF signal monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842066 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:36:32 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- sidc-1.8-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831209] Review Request: parboiled - Java/Scala library providing parsing of input text based on PEGs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831209 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:34:57 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- parboiled-1.0.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839701] Review Request: perl-SQL-ReservedWords - Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817311] Review Request: miniupnpc - Library and tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817311 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- miniupnpc-1.6-6.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820548] Review Request: jasperreports - Report-generating tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820548 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:33:03 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- jasperreports-4.0.2-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837268] Review Request: CardManager - network game for collectable card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837268 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- CardManager-1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838756] Review Request: maven-indexer - Standard for producing indexes of Maven repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838756 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- maven-indexer-4.1.2-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839706] Review Request: perl-Time-Clock - Twenty-four hour clock object with nanosecond precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:29:46 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Time-Clock-1.02-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829971] Review Request: samplv1 -A polyphonic sampler synthesizer with stereo fx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829971 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- samplv1-0.0.8-0.1.svn759.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840239] Review Request: transmageddon - Video transcoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840239 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:28:50 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837268] Review Request: CardManager - network game for collectable card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837268 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |ERRATA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- CardManager-1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839701] Review Request: perl-SQL-ReservedWords - Determine if words are reserved by ANSI/ISO SQL standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:26:56 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-SQL-ReservedWords-0.7-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830664] Review Request: Add64 - an additive synthesizer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- Add64-1.2.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839317] Review Request: jaxws-jboss-httpserver-httpspi - JBoss httpserver to JAXWS 2.2 HTTP SPI bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839317 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |ERRATA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- jaxws-jboss-httpserver-httpspi-1.0.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 --- Comment #10 from Steven Dake --- Jeff, This package has 3 blocking issues: [!]: 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 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: 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. Please include LICENSE in the %doc section [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. Does not require yum, in any regard, yum is in the list of expected by default 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 809540] Review Request: eclipselink - Eclipse Persistence Services Project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809540 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:26:00 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- eclipselink-2.3.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817311] Review Request: miniupnpc - Library and tool to control NAT in UPnP-enabled routers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817311 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2012-07-02 14:59:53 |2012-07-26 18:25:38 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- miniupnpc-1.6-6.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842633] Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - OpenID authentication application for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842633 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-django-authopenid-1.0.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831975] Review Request: guacamole-common-js - The JavaScript library used by the Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831975 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:25:13 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- guacamole-common-js-0.6.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636
--- Comment #9 from Steven Dake ---
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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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.
Please include LICENSE in the %doc section
[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* Apache (v2.0)" For detailed output of licensecheck see
file: /home/sdake/heat-jeos/840636-heat_jeos/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.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Does not require yum, in any regard, yum is in the list of expected by
default packages.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST 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.
[!]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architect
[Bug 823234] Review Request: sugar-nutrition - A collection of nutrition games for sugar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823234 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- sugar-nutrition-4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838621] Review Request: perl-ServiceNow-API - ServiceNow API for accessing the Service-now platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838621 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-ServiceNow-API-1.01-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:24:39 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- ehcache-core-2.6.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- sugar-recall-2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:24:17 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- sugar-nutrition-4-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823847] Review Request: simple-jndi - A JNDI implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:23:49 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- simple-jndi-0.11.4.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:23:39 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- openjpa-2.2.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:23:28 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- sugar-recall-2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830812] Review Request: paulstretch - an audio time stretching utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830812 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:23:00 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- paulstretch-2.2.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838621] Review Request: perl-ServiceNow-API - ServiceNow API for accessing the Service-now platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838621 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-ServiceNow-API-1.01-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823105] Review Request: erlang-riak_control - Admin UI for Riak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823105
Patrick Uiterwijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
- I see you are still doing a sed-line, which can still break after upstream
changes that file (sed -i -e "5,11d" rebar.config).
- Source0 is still no valid URL, but this is not such a problem since the
github links are very strange.
- Why don't you use %{name} for the PatchX-lines? So for example:
Patch1: %{name}-0001-Typo-fix-no-such-function-gen_server-cast-3.patch
- Why do the Requires-lines say you need the specific same arch? Is it
incompatible with the libraries of a different architecture?
- In %files, you could have removed the %dir
%{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/ and remove the asterisk from
the %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/*
- The %setup-line has a magic version number in it:
%{upstream}-%{realname}-d5f714a. As this is the same name as in %setup -n, you
can use %{buildsubdir} to refer to this directory.
The first one is the only one I think is really critical, as this can make it
break somewhere in the future without any warnings.
I think you could fix this before pushing and won't need a re-look, so hereby I
declare this package as
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 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 --- Comment #8 from Jeff Peeler --- Removed heat from requires. Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/heat-api/heat-rpms/master/heat_jeos.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/heat_jeos-1-3.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 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake --- Can you remove heat as a depends for heat_jeos. The idea behind making a separate tool was so that heat didn't need to be installed to generate jeos images. Also, it would make the fedora review easier, since heat is not in mock for fedora-review tool. :) Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842107] Review Request: sugar-america - Game about the America geography
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842107 --- Comment #1 from Danishka Navin --- fixed UTF-8 character encoding issue in NEWS file http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-america/sugar-america.spec http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-america/sugar-america-5-2.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 818729] Review Request: kidsruby - A fun and easy way for kids to learn how to program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818729 Brenton Leanhardt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blean...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Brenton Leanhardt --- Hi Jon, This is a great start. I'd like to offer an informal review of this package. Here are the issues I noticed: For readabilty please place the 'Requires' and 'BuildRequires' on their own line. For the Ruby 1.9 requirement see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_ABI. On a similar note, please BuildRequire ruby-devel. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Non-Gem_Packages Make sure you have worked with upstream to incorporate fix_rubywarrior.patch: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment Also in rubywarrior.rb please I think we should ask for justification of the the monkey patching instead of patching rubywarrior. In my opinion this is very close to a bundled library. For more details on this issue please read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries In this particular instance the issue seems very minor so it may suffice to work with upstream to have them document contact with the rubywarrior project to have the needed modifications made but not to make this a blocker. However, fixing this will be better for both projects in the end. The comment in KidsRuby.sh is misleading. It says that users should run it from their home directory yet it's installed to /usr/bin/KidsRuby.sh. The most recent changelog entry is lacking proper contact information. When I ran rpmlint I saw the following: kidsruby.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL_mixer-devel kidsruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/kidsruby/public/js/jquery/jquery-1.6.2.min.js kidsruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/kidsruby/public/js/jquery/jquery-ui-1.8.16.custom.min.js kidsruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/kidsruby/public/css/blitzer/jquery-ui-1.8.16.custom.css kidsruby.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/KidsRuby.sh kidsruby.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary KidsRuby.sh 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings. The javascript ones are probably false negatives. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840239] Review Request: transmageddon - Video transcoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840239 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: transmageddon Short Description: Video transcoder Owners: kalev 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 840239] Review Request: transmageddon - Video transcoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840239 --- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember --- Will do, thanks for the 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 843646] Review Request: sugar-india - Game about the geography of India
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646 Danishka Navin 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 843646] New: Review Request: sugar-india - Game about the geography of India
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646 Bug ID: 843646 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: sugar-india - Game about the geography of India Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: danis...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-india/sugar-india.spec SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-india/sugar-india-2-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Game about the geography of India. This first version only include the name of states and capital cities. http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4587 Fedora Account System Username: snavin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840239] Review Request: transmageddon - Video transcoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840239
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann ---
The upstream website is back again!
-
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.
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
LGPLv2
According to the header of transmageddon.py, the developers accept the
distribution under newer versions of LGPLv2, that's why it has to be
LGPLv2+
[X] 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 *
1149a5b670ab30007274c27850550de9 transmageddon-0.21.tar.xz
1149a5b670ab30007274c27850550de9 transmageddon-0.21.tar.xz.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 for me, given the modest possibilities of Transmageddon.
[+] 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
--
Please don't forget to change the license from LGPLv2 to LGPLv2+ before you
import the package into the Git repo!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842509] Review Request: libdbusmenu - A helper library for libindicator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842509
--- Comment #14 from Michael Scherer ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
[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 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
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v3,)", "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see
file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/842509-libdbusmenu/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: 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 Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
Note: Only applicable for EL-5
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the 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.
[
[Bug 842509] Review Request: libdbusmenu - A helper library for libindicator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842509 --- Comment #13 from Michael Scherer --- And there is no license installed if I install just the -doc subpackage ( ie, there is no deps on the main rpm, nor copy of the license in it ). And that's a blocker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842509] Review Request: libdbusmenu - A helper library for libindicator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842509
--- Comment #12 from Michael Scherer ---
yeah, i just wondered.
Anyway, while doing the full review, i found out that %dir %{_datadir}/vala/ is
likely unowned in the rpm, can you fix this ( I continue the review in the
meantime, that's not a blocking issue )
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823105] Review Request: erlang-riak_control - Admin UI for Riak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823105 --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to comment #5) > Also, using sed to build is very dangerous, it could break things if not > kept up-to-date with the sources. > I would advice you to use a patch file, as this will just fail to apply if > the upstream sources are changed. Thanks for the sensible advice! I really didn't realise why sed might be a bad idea. Here are updated files: * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-riak_control.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-riak_control-0.1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm Changelog: - Consistent usage of macros. - Removed sed invocation (replaced by patch-file) - Fully removed EL5-related junk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- tntnet-2.1-13.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tntnet-2.1-13.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 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- tntnet-2.1-13.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tntnet-2.1-13.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 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-26 15:00:03 --- Comment #28 from MartinKG --- the package built successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4332353 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4332380 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4332418 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821233] vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821233 Bug 821233 depends on bug 821224, which changed state. Bug 821224 Summary: tntnet - A web application server for web applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839142] Review Request: python-urllib2_kerberos - Kerberos over HTTP Negotiate/SPNEGO support for urllib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142 Brenton Leanhardt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blean...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Brenton Leanhardt --- From the looks of the changelog this is a deprecated package. While it's not listed formally on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Deprecated_packages you can see from https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-urllib2_kerberos that the status is deprecated and that it's orphaned in fedora-devel. In many cases this is for good reason. If a packages isn't being maintained anymore it's not appropriate for Fedora. What you'll need to do from here is contact the previous package maintainers and find out why it's in this state. You should also attempt to contact the upstream maintainer. Just to be clear, in the case where upstream is unresponsive you need to make sure you are willing to maintain not only the packaging but also the library itself (ie, fixing critical bugs). Any evidence of your qualifications for doing this would go a long way to encouraging the Fedora community to reinstate this package. For more information see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823105] Review Request: erlang-riak_control - Admin UI for Riak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823105 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Also, using sed to build is very dangerous, it could break things if not kept up-to-date with the sources. I would advice you to use a patch file, as this will just fail to apply if the upstream sources are changed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823105] Review Request: erlang-riak_control - Admin UI for Riak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823105 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- MD5-sum check - 798797f3ee9f413183d3a227f4051070 basho-riak_control-0.1.2-0-gc7fd3a9.tar.gz 798797f3ee9f413183d3a227f4051070 riak_control-0.1.2.0.tar.gz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841766] Review Request: erlang-riak_search - Full-text search engine based on Riak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841766 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- This cannot be reviewed yet, as erlang-riak_kv is not yet available in rawhide. I will do this tomorrow, after the new rawhide compose, as this package was built yesterday. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822283] Review Request: vim-omnicppcomplete - vim c++ completion omnifunc with a ctags database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822283 Brenton Leanhardt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blean...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Brenton Leanhardt --- Hi Marc, Thanks for contacting upstream to have them release the code under the GPL. Just so you are aware, right now the Spec and SRPM links return a 403. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823105] Review Request: erlang-riak_control - Admin UI for Riak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823105
Patrick Uiterwijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
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
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: Different styles of variables used (e.g. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and
%{_libdir})
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the 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.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (basho-riak_control-0.1.2-0-gc7fd3a9.tar.gz)
[!]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
Note: Source0 does specify how to download, but is not a URL i
[Bug 820488] Review Request: mod_auth_xradius - Apache module that provides authentication against RADIUS Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820488 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System --- mod_auth_xradius-0.4.6-16.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833395] Review Request: ginfo - Service Discovery Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841418] Review Request: prey - Open-source anti-theft solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841418
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
> > I don't see any other issues so this package is
>
> But I do. This package is _far_, _far_ from being FHS compliant. It installs
> scripts, config files and OS depended files into ${datadir}.
I will look into the locations, but the config file which should override all
others is placed as /etc/sysconfig/prey, and I wonder which OS dependant files
you mean, as it is just a bunch of bash scripts?
(In reply to comment #6)
> I wonder how many false positives you will get behind hotspots. perhaps it
> should first check fedoraproject.org/static/hotspot.txt ?
It is not activated by IP, but by the user registering the device as stolen on
the control panel, or removing a file on a web server.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822959] Review Request: nitrotasks - Super awesome task management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822959
Brenton Leanhardt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blean...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Brenton Leanhardt ---
Other things that need to be fixed:
When I tried to build with mock the 'intltool' BuildRequire was missing.
It's also preferable to require 'python-devel'. That will BuildRequire python
as well as give you access to convenient macros like %{__python}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
You need to install nitrotasks.desktop.in as mentioned here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
You need to verify that permission has been granted to distribute logos for
DropBox, Ubuntu. There is also an image of Justin Bieber that is probably not
free to distribute.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Tags
The Vendor tag should not be used. It is set automatically by the build system
It's adviseable to work with upstream to clearly state the copyright holder in
the COPYING file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842778] Review Request: avgtime - Time a command and print average, standard deviation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842778 Bug 842778 depends on bug 843133, which changed state. Bug 843133 Summary: Simple D program cannot link in Rawhide: "undefined reference to `curl_easy_setopt'" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843133 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 842778] Review Request: avgtime - Time a command and print average, standard deviation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842778 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Built in Rawhide, and I added the flags too. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4331688 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838756] Review Request: maven-indexer - Standard for producing indexes of Maven repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838756 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- maven-indexer-4.1.2-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-indexer-4.1.2-3.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 838756] Review Request: maven-indexer - Standard for producing indexes of Maven repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838756 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842509] Review Request: libdbusmenu - A helper library for libindicator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842509 --- Comment #11 from Jef Spaleta --- - Upstream has some interesting patterns for source url directory tree across "series" I'd rather not assume anything about versioning and build the url by hand. - dbus-bench is shipped in the main package libexec and its a python script and its explicitly LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 in the python script. I've confirmed that this shipped in U.'s packaging as well. I should probably cycle back and split this off as a -tools subpackage and enable the building of the dumper and the testapp as well. Or just not include dbus-bench. - yes the inability of disable-rpath to actually...disable rpath..is a bit of a mystery and I will make an effort to help upstream identify why its not working cleanly. And the sed instructions that I have commented out, cause or sorts of havoc if applied in the build process. As the upstream for this is very focused on a particular distribution channel, that does not have a similar rpath policy, it might take a bit of a negotation to get them to see it as an issue worth fixing. But I'll try to understand what's going wrong and submit a patch with a fix. Though I don't think getting that fixed should be a blocker for getting this into rawhide. The chrpath hack works for now, though not ideal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842891] Review Request: stickshift-broker - StickShift broker components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842891 Michael Scherer 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 841418] Review Request: prey - Open-source anti-theft solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841418 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Paul Wouters --- I wonder how many false positives you will get behind hotspots. perhaps it should first check fedoraproject.org/static/hotspot.txt ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842459] Review Request: rubygem-uplift-bind-plugin - Uplift plugin for BIND service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842459 Michael Scherer 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 842459] Review Request: rubygem-uplift-bind-plugin - Uplift plugin for BIND service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842459 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.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
