[Bug 843775] Review Request: rubygem-temple - Template compilation framework in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843775 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-31 02:49:22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844589] New: Review Request: perl-Devel-Declare-Parser - Higher level interface to Devel-Declare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844589 Bug ID: 844589 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: perl-Devel-Declare-Parser - Higher level interface to Devel-Declare Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jples...@redhat.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Devel-Declare-Parser/perl-Devel-Declare-Parser.spec SRPM URL: http://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Devel-Declare-Parser/perl-Devel-Declare-Parser-0.017-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Devel-Declare-Parser is a higher-level API sitting on top of Devel::Declare. It is used by Devel::Declare::Exporter to simplify exporting of Devel::Declare magic. Writing custom parsers usualy only requires subclassing this module and overriding a couple methods. Fedora Account System Username: jplesnik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #21 from Michael Scherer --- No, I mean use foo.1.* , so if the spec is ported on another distribution using lzma, or if Fedora start to use lzma, bz2 or something else, you will have no change to make later. And I do not understand why you have attached all those patches, my point was they go against the spirit of the recommendation for patches : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream IE, now there is a new upstream, I think they should really take a look at those patches and see if they are acceptable for them, or say if they reject them. If they do not apply as such, I would take the source code without patch, use patcher ( or git ), and try to apply them one by one, and record the change with git add, and then inspect each patch to see if it look like the old one, if it fixes the issue, if it doesn't introduce a new one ( especially with patch that are applied with the fuzzy option, they can be applied at the wrong location and introduce subtle bugs that upstream developers will never reproduce because they do not have the same patch, giving us a bad reputation ). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828735] Review Request: ghc-numbers - Instances of the numerical classes for a variety of different numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828735 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-numbers Short Description: Instances of the numerical classes for a variety of different numbers Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833356] Review Request: ghc-data-inttrie - A simple lazy, infinite trie from integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833356 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828735] Review Request: ghc-numbers - Instances of the numerical classes for a variety of different numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828735
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm
ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-numbers-devel-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-numbers.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
BSD
[+]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 must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included
[+]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,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum n9bb1f90a517260e264cfe6900c1a538bumbers-3000.0.0.0.tar.gz
ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc16.src/numbers-3000.0.0.0.tar.gz
numbers-3000.0.0.0.tar.gz
9bb1f90a517260e264cfe6900c1a538b
ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc16.src/numbers-3000.0.0.0.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86)64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-numbers
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(numbers-3000.0.0.0) = 003415b346b0f314cce12fcf21a874ec is needed by
(installed) ghc-numbers-devel-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-numbers = 3000.0.0.0-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-numbers-devel-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64
[+]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 items
[+]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: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Loaded Data.Number.Natural into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
Please provide a different summary and description for the package in the spec
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 843997] Review Request: mlpack - scalable C++ machine learning library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Curtin ---
Hello there,
Thank you for the numerous comments. It appears I have many things to learn
before becoming a sponsored packager!
I have unofficially reviewed two packages and in doing so have learned much
about the Fedora packaging guidelines which I thought I knew... but apparently
did not.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820115
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843678
> Not covered by any guidelines, but in many cases the leading article is
> superfluous and doesn't increase conciseness.
>
> Summary: Scalable, fast C++ machine learning library
You are right; fixed.
I also fixed the group issues which were mentioned; the libraries and headers
now reside in 'System Environment/Libraries', and the executables live in
'Applications/Engineering'. If those choices are wrong, let me know and I will
have it fixed quickly.
I commented the entire spec file more heavily, including better reasons for
each of the patches and justification for versioned dependencies.
> %_mandir implicitly is marked as documentation. Also, the gzip compression
> may change or be disabled within a buildsystem, so using wildcards can be
> beneficial.
>
> %{_mandir}/man1/allknn.1*
Neat, I did not know that. I've fixed that also.
The other issues you've mentioned have also been fixed.
> Since you're upstream, I'd recommend considering a renamal of the binaries to
> have, say, a ml_ prefix.
I am not sure what we want to do upstream yet, but for now in this package I
rename all the binaries to mlpack_$name (i.e. mlpack_radical) and rename the
man pages correspondingly using a little bash for loop. I think that should
resolve the ambiguity for now, and that may be the long-term upstream solution
too.
> An honest attempt at trying to review your own package could be enlightening.
You were right; I went through all the MUST/SHOULDs and did not find any others
which are a problem (other than the ones you pointed out).
I then rebuilt on koji successfully (and tested the executables locally):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4344100
The updated spec: http://www.mlpack.org/files/mlpack.spec
The updated srpm: http://www.mlpack.org/files/mlpack-1.0.1-3.fc17.src.rpm
If there is anything else I've missed, let me know and I will fix it quickly.
Thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820115] Review Request: leptonica - C library for efficient image processing and image analysis operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820115
Ryan Curtin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@igglybob.com
--- Comment #8 from Ryan Curtin ---
Hello there,
I am an unsponsored reviewer, so this is an unofficial review; I may have
written some things that are incorrect... nonetheless, I found a couple issues.
Any of the MUST/SHOULD guidelines that were okay I didn't include here (for
the sake of space) but I did check them.
First I noticed that the package no longer installs any binaries, so the
comments addressing that are now no longer applicable, I suppose.
>>> MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
>>> produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint -v leptonica.spec
leptonica.spec: I: checking-url
http://leptonica.googlecode.com/files/leptonica-1.69.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
leptonica.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://leptonica.googlecode.com/files/leptonica-1.69.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
It seems like the actual package URL is a .tar.bz2. I made that substitution
to perform the rest of the review and testing.
>>> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
>>> the Licensing Guidelines.
>>> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
>>> license.
The package is listed as using the ASL 2.0 license but the file
leptonica-license.txt does not seem to be the same as the ASL. It seems
similar but differs specifically in that clause 4.2 of the ASL 2.0 license
("you must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You
changed the files") does not seem to be present in the Leptonica license. I
can't seem to discern based on Wiki resources whether or not calling it ASL 2.0
is okay; after all, the two do seem fairly similar.
>>> MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
>>> as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If
>>> no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source
>>> URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
This should be okay once the Source0 line is fixed.
>>> MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
This may be, and probably is, unnecessary pedantry, but
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/liblept.la
Since you've already defined %{libname} as liblept, couldn't you use
%{libname}.la?
>>> SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>>> SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
>>> supported architectures.
Builds just fine.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4343521
>>> SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
>>> vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
I think a patch should be used instead of the sed substitution; if the sed
lines no longer become necessary (or perhaps even become harmful after upstream
updates), sed will not fail. Patches, on the other hand, will throw errors and
the problem is clear at buildtime and does not manifest as a bizarre runtime
bug. I have seen some other reviews where people have suggested this (prefer
patches to sed) but I can't find a particular guideline indicating it. So I
guess this is just my opinion. :)
I also think there may be a typo in the description:
> * Pixel<-wise masking, blending, enhancement, arithmetic ops,
Should that be 'pixel-wise'?
Hopefully this is a helpful review. I apologize for any errors I have made.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844170] Review Request: fedora-jam-backgrounds - audio spin wallpapers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844170 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones --- Thanks again. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedora-jam-backgrounds Short Description: Fedora Jam desktop backgrounds Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
Ryan Curtin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@igglybob.com
--- Comment #1 from Ryan Curtin ---
Hello there,
I am an unsponsored reviewer, so this is an unofficial review, but I've done my
best. Any of the MUST/SHOULD guidelines which passed I haven't included here
(for the sake of space) but I did test them.
>>> MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
>>> produces. The output should be posted in the review.
Runs just fine:
$ rpmlint -v sugar-castle.spec
sugar-castle.spec: I: checking-url
http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/sugarlabs/activities/4397/castle-23.xo (timeout
10 seconds)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>>> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
>>> license. [3]
>>> 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
The spec file lists GPLv3+, but nowhere in the source is a license mentioned,
nor is a license included with the package. Perhaps upstream should be
contacted for clarity?
>>> MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
>>> at least one primary architecture.
Builds okay:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4343387
>>> MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
>>> with executable permissions, for example.
All of the resource files (data/ and activity/) are marked executable
unnecessarily. It seems as though activity.svg must be executable, though,
because '#!/usr/bin/python' is being put into it.
>>> MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
%{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT are used interchangeably; just pick one of the
two and use it consistently:
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> %{__python} ./setup.py install --prefix=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix}
Also, where you use 'sed -i -e '1i#!/usr/bin/python', maybe it would be good to
use %{__python} instead of /usr/bin/python.
>>> 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.
License information from upstream does not seem to be available (this is
mentioned earlier).
>>> SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Builds okay.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4343387
>>> SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
>>> supported architectures.
This is noarch so I assume that is not strictly necessary.
>>> SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
>>> package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
I attempted to call the executable with:
$ /usr/share/sugar/activities/Castle.activity/Castle.py
which may not be correct, so I apologize if that was the wrong way to call it.
I found that 'pygame' is an unlisted dependency. Once that was installed, I
seemed to run into a path issue:
Peter says: Can't find data/pointer.png
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/share/sugar/activities/Castle.activity/Castle.py", line 219, in
game.run()
File "/usr/share/sugar/activities/Castle.activity/Castle.py", line 145, in
run
g.init()
File "/usr/share/sugar/activities/Castle.activity/g.py", line 78, in init
pointer=utils.load_image('pointer.png',True)
File "/usr/share/sugar/activities/Castle.activity/utils.py", line 56, in
load_image
print "Peter says: Can't find "+fname; exit()
File "/usr/share/sugar/activities/Castle.activity/utils.py", line 10, in exit
save()
File "/usr/share/sugar/activities/Castle.activity/utils.py", line 20, in save
f=open(fname, 'w')
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'data/castle.dat'
It is possible that my invocation of the program is incorrect, and when done
properly some path-like variable is set correctly and this is not a problem.
>>> SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
>>> vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
I think that maybe a patch file should be used instead of sed to get the
'#!/usr/bin/python' in there. If upstream changes how things work, the patch
will then probably fail while the sed expressions would continue happily along
when maybe they shouldn't.
>>> SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
>>> doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
I am not sure how applicable man pages are in this context, but none are
provided.
Hopefully my review is helpful. I apologize in advance for any errors I've
made.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
[Bug 840636] Review Request: heat-jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 Jeff Peeler changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Jeff Peeler --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: heat-jeos Short Description: a tool to create JEOS images for Heat Owners: asalkeld imain jpeeler sdake zaneb Branches: devel 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 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|844015 (mate-conf) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844152] Review Request: mate-file-manager - File manager for MATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844152 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|844015 (mate-conf) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|844152 (mate-file-manager), | |844165 | |(mate-window-manager) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|dan.mas...@gmail.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #37 from Dan Mashal --- I'm stepping back from this review as per the following rule: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process The Reviewer can be any Fedora account holder, who is a member of the packager group. There is one exception: If it is the first package of a Contributor, the Reviewer must be a Sponsor. You can check if a Contributor has already been sponsored by looking the e-mail address up in the packager group of the account system. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #20 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- new mate-window-manager-1.4.0-3 http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc16/SRPM/mate-window-manager-1.4.0-3.fc16.src.rpm http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc16/SPECS/mate-window-manager.spec %changelog * Mon Jul 30 2012 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.4.0-3 - remove screenshot-forkbomb.patch - change %%define to %%global * Mon Jul 30 2012 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.4.0-2 - initial build for fedora - remove workspaces.patch * Sun Dec 25 2011 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.1.0-1 - mate-window-manager.spec based on metacity-2.34.1-1.fc16 spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Steven Dake --- PACKAGE APPROVED FOR FEDORA. Please submit a valid SCM request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833641] Review Request: eclipse-wtp-jpa - Eclipse tools for definition of (O/R) mappings for JPA entities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833641 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- eclipse-wtp-jpa-3.4.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-wtp-jpa-3.4.0-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 Steve Zesch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stevezes...@gmail.com --- Comment #36 from Steve Zesch --- Upstream dev here. macros.mateconf is not required to build mate-conf nor is it required for mate-conf to function properly. Its purpose is to allow for schema removal when mate-conf is removed and to handle upgrades. Basically, it's something that's nice to have but it's not a necessity. We use something similar in our packages for other distros. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 Wolfgang Ulbrich 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 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 --- Comment #35 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- wir harren der Dinge die da kommen! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #19 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- (In reply to comment #18) > Created attachment 601367 [details] > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558723 > > without a them a mysterious window after login with mdm will displayed comment is wrong, sorry -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #18 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601367 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601367&action=edit http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558723 without a them a mysterious window after login with mdm will displayed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #17 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601366 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601366&action=edit http://forums.mate-desktop.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14 without a them a mysterious window after login with mdm will displayed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #16 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601365 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601365&action=edit http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=336750 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #15 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601364 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601364&action=edit https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604319 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #14 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601363 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601363&action=edit https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559816 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #13 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601362 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601362&action=edit fedora specific patches -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 --- Comment #34 from Dan Mashal --- Wolfgang, I am doing the review. I appreciate your patience and explanation of the questions I had tonight. Please be patient. Reviews don't happen over night. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #12 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601361 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601361&action=edit https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=598995 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #11 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601360 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601360&action=edit http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135056 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #10 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601359 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601359&action=edit Apply-new_windows_always_on_top-to-newly-raised-action -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #9 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601358 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601358&action=edit https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622517 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #8 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601357 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601357&action=edit https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599248 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #7 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Created attachment 601356 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601356&action=edit https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599261 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165 --- Comment #6 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- oops, i forget change %define to %global but i got it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844165] Review Request: mate-window-manager - Unobtrusive window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165
--- Comment #5 from Wolfgang Ulbrich ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hi,
>
> there is a few thing to fix ( while waiting for mate-conf to be done ) :
>
>
> - %define _default_patch_fuzz 999
>
> this should be dropped. If there is a problem, the patch could be applied
> incorrectly with issue that would be hard to debug.
without that line building applying patches failed.
At this point i will check if this patches are necessary and can drop safely.
[rave@mother ~]$ rpmbuild -ba
/home/rave/rpmbuild/SPECS/mate-window-manager.spec
Ausführung(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5CicTY
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/rave/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ cd /home/rave/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf mate-window-manager-1.4.0
+ /usr/bin/xz -dc /home/rave/rpmbuild/SOURCES/mate-window-manager-1.4.0.tar.xz
+ /bin/tar -xf -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd mate-window-manager-1.4.0
+ /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ echo 'Patch #0 (Should-set-RestartStyleHint-to-RestartIfRunning-wh.patch):'
Patch #0 (Should-set-RestartStyleHint-to-RestartIfRunning-wh.patch):
+ /bin/cat
/home/rave/rpmbuild/SOURCES/Should-set-RestartStyleHint-to-RestartIfRunning-wh.patch
+ /usr/bin/patch -s -p1 -b --suffix
.Should-set-RestartStyleHint-to-RestartIfRunning-wh --fuzz=0
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/core/main.c.rej
patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
This happens with patch 0, 19, 20 , 120, 24, 29
I understand your hint, what can i do to get patches work alternative?
> Not to mention that %define should be replaced by %global
>
>
> - why is there a -devel if it is not mean to be used and linked with ?
> Either the description is misleading, or there is something using it.
>
>
> - rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> this should be removed, that's not needed on fedora ( nor on any modern
> distribution )
done
>
> - speaking of patches, they should be sent upstream ( ie, to mate, not to
> gnome ), and if patch are unused, they should be dropped ( or properly
> rediffed, if they do not apply ). And I think that patching to change defaut
> is IMHO bad ( like workspaces.patch ), like changing the private API (
> Should-set-RestartStyleHint-to-RestartIfRunning-wh.patch )
>
> There is also some patch that were seen as non working by gnome (
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=336750 )
I will talk about this in another post, accept workspaces.patch.
i remove them because it is nonsense.
> - %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> is uneeded since a long time
thx, for info
done
>
> - %{_bindir}/marco-theme-viewer
> why is it placed in -devel, as this sound like a useful tool for every day
> usage ?
extra post
>
> - %{_mandir}/man1/marco-theme-viewer.1.gz
> I would recommend to use a joker instead of *.gz, so this would be less work
> later if the extension is changed.
You mean like this?
%{_mandir}/man1/marco.*.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/marco-message.*.gz
done
>
> - the reason to run autogen.sh should be documented ( in this case, the
> patch 19 ), so this would be removed once patch is merged upstream
>
autogen.sh is needed because all mate upstreams doesn't have configure or make
files, only configure.in or .ac and make.in .
I will documented it.
NOCONFIGURE=1 to avoid double configure
I don't understand what you mean with patch 19
>
> - %{_datadir}/mate/wm-properties/
> wouldn't this directory end unowned in the end ? ( and so should be fixed )
I will change it to
%{_datadir}/mate/wm-properties/marco-wm.desktop
>
> - the desktop-file should be validated in the spec :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-
> install_usage
I will read this for understanding
>
> - BuildRequires: libtool automake autoconf gettext
> BuildRequires:autoconf, automake, libtool, mate-common
>
> there is duplicate BuildRequires
You right!
I will change it, libtool i remove if current mate-common in stable.
I've done a new starting point for this request
http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc16/SPECS/mate-window-manager.spec
http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc16/SRPM/mate-window-manager-1.4.0-2.fc16.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 #18 from Jeff Peeler --- Renamed heat_jeos to heat-jeos. Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/heat-api/heat-rpms/master/heat-jeos.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/heat-jeos-1-5.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 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 --- Comment #33 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- new scratch build for a new reviewer mate-conf-1.4.0-10.fc18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4343862 http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc18/SPECS/mate-conf.spec http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc18/SRPM/mate-conf-1.4.0-10.fc18.src.rpm changelog * Mon Jul 30 2012 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.4.0-10 - remove double BuildRequires * Sun Jul 29 2012 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.4.0-9 - fix rpmlint error - add %%doc COPYING NEWS README to mate-conf-gtk as rpmlint want this * Sat Jul 28 2012 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.4.0-8 - fix licence information - add information to macro - fix url - update specific versions from dependencies from configure.in - Change %%defines to %%global * Sat Jul 28 2012 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.4.0-7 - remove *.la files * Sat Jul 28 2012 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.4.0-6 - initial package for fedora * Sun Dec 25 2011 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 1.1.0-1 - mate-conf.spec based on GConf2-2.32.4-1.fc16 spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840740] Review Request: ibus-typing-booster - Auto completion for ibus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840740 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- ibus-typing-booster-0.0.7-1.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 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.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 838608] Review Request: shim - first stage UEFI bootloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838608 --- Comment #4 from Nalin Dahyabhai --- (In reply to comment #3) > "FIX? The build process produces a shim.efi.debug file -- is that supposed > to be in the debuginfo package, or are we expecting that there won't be any > because the binary is not ELF?" > > There's no real way to use the debuginfo, since the binary never runs under > the installed system. Using standard debug mechanisms isn't possible. Fair enough. Is the .debug file useful with any other tools? If so, does it make sense to try to get it into the debuginfo subpackage? If not, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo notes a way to disable generation of a debuginfo subpackage. Doing so and noting why it's done could be useful for people who wonder about this in the future. > "CHECK: The stated license (MIT) is acceptable, though linking with (a > partial bundled) OpenSSL libcrypto and with libgnuefi at the same time could > be problematic." > > gnuefi has been relicensed to BSD and I've uploaded an updated version to > rawhide. OK. > "FIX? The notes in COPYRIGHT appear to match BSD (2 clause variant) as > listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD more > closely than https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT, though both are > free licenses." > > Changed to BSD. OK. > "FIX? Does this need to be "ExclusiveArch: i686 x86_64 ia64" or similar, as > gnu-efi, which is one of this package's build requirements, is?" > > Made ExclusiveArch: x86_64 (it doesn't support other relocation formats) OK. > "FIX: Are the -mno-red-zone flag and static linking the main reasons for > bundling OpenSSL's libcrypto here? Can comments be added to the .spec file > so that the rationale is known?" > > Yes. I've added some comments. Thanks! > "FIX: The package includes /boot/efi/EFI/redhat/shim.efi; the gnu-efi > package provides /boot/efi/EFI/redhat, but this package doesn't require > gnu-efi. Please add a "Requires: gnu-efi" to ensure that the directory is > owned while the package is installed." > > Done. OK. > "FIX: Please specify the desired permissions when calling 'install' during > the %install phase." > > Done, although install defaults to 0755 in the absence of anything else. > > New SRPM and spec uploaded to http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/shim/ OK. (In reply to comment #2) > rpmlint is finding the following errors: > > Checking: shim-0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm > shim-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm > shim-0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm > shim.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, > boot-loader, boatload > shim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot loader, > boot-loader, boatload > shim-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package > shim.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bootloader -> boot loader, > boot-loader, boatload > shim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootloader -> boot > loader, boot-loader, boatload > shim.x86_64: E: no-binary > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Whether it's spelled "bootloader" or "boot loader" seems to be up for debate (rpmlint wants the latter, but the former _does_ show up in my /usr/share/dict/words), so my personal inclination is to give these a pass. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- sslsplit-0.4.4-4.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 817306] Review Request: libircclient - C library to create IRC clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817306 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- libircclient-1.6-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libircclient-1.6-3.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 817306] Review Request: libircclient - C library to create IRC clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817306 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- libircclient-1.6-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libircclient-1.6-3.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 817306] Review Request: libircclient - C library to create IRC clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817306 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 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 --- Comment #32 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- pls, can anyone other do 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 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 Wolfgang Ulbrich 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 844170] Review Request: fedora-jam-backgrounds - audio spin wallpapers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844170 Jørn Lomax changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jørn Lomax --- All good now. I so no reason to hold back this package anymore Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 --- Comment #31 from leigh scott --- (In reply to comment #30) > I did a chat with Dan. > He told me to add a url or source1. > like http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Test/macros.mateconf > I don't find any hint of this concern in package guide line > Can anyone confirm if this is necessary or only a idea? macros.mateconf doesn't require a source URL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 --- Comment #30 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- I did a chat with Dan. He told me to add a url or source1. like http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Test/macros.mateconf I don't find any hint of this concern in package guide line Can anyone confirm if this is necessary or only a idea? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844439] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844479] Review Request: jgroups212 - A toolkit for reliable multicast communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844479 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844479] New: Review Request: jgroups212 - A toolkit for reliable multicast communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844479 Bug ID: 844479 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: jgroups212 - A toolkit for reliable multicast communication Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mspauldin...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/jgroups212.spec SRPM URL: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/jgroups212-2.12.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: A toolkit for reliable multicast communication. It allows developers to create reliable multipoint (multicast) applications where reliability is a deployment issue, and does not have to be implemented by the application developer. This saves application developers significant amounts of time, and allows for the application to be deployed in different environments, without having to change code. Fedora Account System Username: madsa Although JGroups 3.0 is already available in Fedora, this version is needed as a dependency of Jbosscache. RPMLint Output: jgroups212.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jgroups212-2.12.3.Final.tar.xz jgroups212.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast jgroups212.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast jgroups212.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipoint -> multipurpose jgroups212.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jgroups212-2.12.3.Final.tar.xz jgroups212.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicast -> Multics, simulcast jgroups212.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> Multics, simulcast jgroups212.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipoint -> multipurpose jgroups212.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jgroups212-2.12.3/LICENSE 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4343518 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 746215] Review Request: perl-RT-Authen-ExternalAuth - RT Authentication using External Sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746215 Gabriel Somlo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-30 16:34:43 --- Comment #16 from Gabriel Somlo --- I finally managed to get a successful build in f18 (now that mod-perl is happy). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843910] Review Request: ktp-contact-runner - Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ktp-contact-runner-0.4.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ktp-contact-runner-0.4.1-1.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 843910] Review Request: ktp-contact-runner - Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ktp-contact-runner-0.4.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ktp-contact-runner-0.4.1-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843910] Review Request: ktp-contact-runner - Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910 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 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 Summary|Review Request: heat_jeos - |Review Request: heat-jeos - |create JEOS images for Heat |create JEOS images for Heat -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #17 from Steven Dake --- Given Jon's comments, I reread the package naming guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators Those indicate that an underscore is not an approved character for a subpackage. Revoking approved status until new SRPM/SPEC is submitted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844439] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439 --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer --- And the facter plugin require openssh ( for ssh-keygen, and the sshfp fact ). As a side note, I think the agent name is misleading : metadata:name=> "Libra Management", :description => "Agent to manage Libra services", so this could be improved too :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844170] Review Request: fedora-jam-backgrounds - audio spin wallpapers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844170 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones --- Well spotted! SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/fedora-jam-backgrounds-0.0.1-2.2.git569af19fa.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/fedora-jam-backgrounds.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836810] Review Request: tt-rss - Web based news feed and aggregator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836810 Sébastien Willmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||542045 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #16 from Jon Ciesla --- Package name in summary and in SCM request don't match, and not all FAS accounts listed are members of Pacakger group, please correct and re-set cvs flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Jeff Peeler changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Jeff Peeler --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: heat-jeos Short Description: a tool to create JEOS images for Heat Owners: asalkeld imain jpeeler sdake tsedovic zbitter Branches: devel 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 844439] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer ---
The binary rpm generate by mock requires ruby(api) 1.8 and 1.9.1, so that's
weird.
There is also a typo on :
Requires: rubygem{openshift-origin-node)
( the spurious { )
And I think there is no support for /etc/cron.minutely ( that would make sense
but that require a patch on cronie I think ). So you should drop a file in
/etc/cron.d to do something like /etc/cron.d/0hourly
And the %description is also wrong.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844170] Review Request: fedora-jam-backgrounds - audio spin wallpapers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844170 --- Comment #4 from Jørn Lomax --- No problem, just happy to have something different to do :) Almost there. You still don't need the licence line for the single package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844439] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439 --- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective-0.1.1-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844170] Review Request: fedora-jam-backgrounds - audio spin wallpapers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844170 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones --- Thanks for the review! I've included a git retrieval script in the SRPM now. I've also removed the obsolete sections. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/fedora-jam-backgrounds-0.0.1-2.1.git569af19fa.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/fedora-jam-backgrounds.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842509] Review Request: libdbusmenu - A helper library for libindicator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842509 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Michael Scherer --- The 2 last issue seems to be fixed, so 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 844170] Review Request: fedora-jam-backgrounds - audio spin wallpapers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844170 Jørn Lomax changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844439] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer --- You forgot to post the spec url :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844011] Review Request: openshift-origin-cartridge-abstract - OpenShift Origin common cartridge components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844011
--- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer ---
I am not sure of using /usr/libexec/stickshift instead of /usr/share for FHS
compliance. While that's upstream decision, I think /usr/share/ would be better
( since that's treated as data ).
And there is still a compiled binary version of mysql jdbc driver in mysql.tar
( modules/com/mysql/jdbc/main/mysql-connector-java-5.1.16-bin.jar ).
I do not see where this is used, except in a documentation that refer to RH
internal server :
https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/blob/master/cartridges/jbossas-7/README
So i would suggest to drop it from the tarball for now ( or to require the
corresponding rpm from fedora, and use it as a source instead ).
Anyway, here is the review, there is just these 2 issue to fix ( bundle of java
class, and the %doc issue ) :
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: MUST 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.
[!]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[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 up
[Bug 843029] Review Request: foxtrotgps - Mapping and GPS application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843029
--- Comment #4 from Till Bubeck ---
Thanks to all valuable feedback. I uploaded a new version:
Spec URL: http://www.reinform.de/privat/bubeck/foxtrotgps.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.reinform.de/privat/bubeck/foxtrotgps-1.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
I changed the following, according to your review comments:
* %{_datadir}/foxtrotgps/ now owned by package
* No use of vendor tag during desktop file install.
* No vendor prefix for desktop file
* usage of package supplied desktop file instead of own file
* No defattr anymore
* libsoup-devel is no BuildReq anymore.
However, I did NOT follow the following review comments:
* "gpsd must not be a Requires". I still list "gpsd" as a Requires,
because rpm found only "gpsd-libs" as a requirement
and foxtrotgps needs gpsd itself.
* "gpscorrelate and jhead" are still Requires, and yes, they are
only needed for geotagging. I kept them, because I think both
packages are very small (< 200 KB) and leaving them out will
result in loss of functionality which is hard to re-establish for
newbies.
So could you please review once more and set the "fedora-review flag" if
nothing is wrong anymore? Otherwise please tell me and I will update the
package ASAP.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844011] Review Request: openshift-origin-cartridge-abstract - OpenShift Origin common cartridge components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844011
--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer ---
I am working on the review,but now I have a question. The review process ask me
to check :
"MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime."
then why is there %{_libexecdir}/stickshift/cartridges/abstract/COPYRIGHT in
%doc ?
IE, if I choose to install the rpm with documentation disabled ( there is a
macro in rpm for that, and that's something that could be done for a livecd ),
would anything break, or is there some requirement to ship the license as part
of the cartdrige ?
If that's the case and if that's required for runtime, then it should not be
tagged as %doc ( since it could be removed by error ), and if that's really
just documentation, why ship it in 2 places ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 #14 from Steven Dake --- Jeff, Please submit a SCM request. Nice work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Steven Dake --- Package passes all review items. PACKAGE APPROVED FOR FEDORA. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840636] Review Request: heat_jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 --- Comment #12 from Steven Dake --- PASS Must: Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details) PASS Must: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. N/A Must: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. N/A Must: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. N/A Should: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|RELEASE_PENDING --- Comment #23 from Paul Wouters --- note EL branch cannot build because we actually require libevent >= 2.0 and EL only has 1.x -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #22 from Fedora Update System --- sslsplit-0.4.4-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sslsplit-0.4.4-4.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825865] Review Request: sslsplit - Transparent and scalable SSL/TLS interception
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825865 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 840239] Review Request: transmageddon - Video transcoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840239 --- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember --- yum --enablerepo=updates-testing install transmageddon ... and if possible, leave feedback at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11186/transmageddon-0.21-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839142] Review Request: python-urllib2_kerberos - Kerberos over HTTP Negotiate/SPNEGO support for urllib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142
Matěj Cepl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Matěj Cepl ---
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review
wycliff:tmp $ rpmlint -i *.src.rpm noarch/*.rpm
python-urllib2_kerberos.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
wycliff:tmp $
Upstream package doesn't contain any special documentation, so this warning can
be ignored, packagers are not required to write documentation themselves. It
would however be good to provide at least some examples how to incorporate this
module into normal Python script (or at least a reference to some web document
describing it). That's however, not a requirement for this packaging review.
+ MUST: package 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 .
This is possible as well:
# Remove "#!/usr/bin/python\n"
tail -n +2 urllib2_kerberos.py >patched-urllib2_kerberos.py
mv patched-urllib2_kerberos.py urllib2_kerberos.py
but I would prefer something more conservative (e.g.,
sed -i -e '/^#!\s*\/.*bin\/.*python/d' urllib2_kerberos.py
or something even better). But, again, that's just a nit-pick not a breach of
the packaging requirements.
+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license
APL2
+ 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 must be included in %doc.
License file is not included in the upstream package.
+ 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, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task
MD5: 9a22d5d243103e17ca0ccf64b51f54ec
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture - build in koji, no problems
0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
Build in koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4342775)
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
No locales are present.
0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
No libraries provided.
+ MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
0 MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker
+ MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
0 MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file 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
[Bug 839142] Review Request: python-urllib2_kerberos - Kerberos over HTTP Negotiate/SPNEGO support for urllib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142 Matěj Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mc...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Matěj Cepl --- Taking 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 842006] Review Request: stickshift-mcollective-agent -M-Collective amqp agent file for gearchanger-mcollective-plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842006 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||tdaw...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-07-30 12:01:33 --- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson --- This package has been renamed to openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective A new review request has been opened with that name. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 844439 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844439] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||admil...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson --- *** Bug 842006 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844439] New: Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439 Bug ID: 844439 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: openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective - M-Collective amqp agent file for openshift-origin Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: tdaw...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: mcollective communication plugin for amqp 1.0 enabled qpid broker Fedora Account System Username: maxamillion tdawson Rpmlint Output [rawhide]$ rpmlint openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rawhide]$ rpmlint /home/quake/rpmbuild/SRPMS/openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective-0.1.1-2.fc18.src.rpm openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) amqp -> amp openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amqp -> amp openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qpid -> quid, lipid 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [rawhide]$ rpmlint /home/quake/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective-0.1.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) amqp -> amp openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amqp -> amp openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qpid -> quid, lipid 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Note 1: This package is designed to be built on EPEL 5 and 6, older Fedora's as well as Fedora 17 and Rawhide. Note 2: I am working with maxamillion on this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842379] Review Request: mcollective-qpid-plugin - Plugin to enable m-collective communication over amqp 1.0 enabled broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842379 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tdaw...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson --- I believe Adam was planning on having this be in EPEL 5 and 6. But I don't see ruby-qpid-qmf in EPEL 5, so I'll have to talk with him about that when he get's back. I have nagged upstream about the License and Copyright files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844426 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839751] Review Request: perl-Rose-DB - DBI wrapper and abstraction layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839751 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843910] Review Request: ktp-contact-runner - Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844011] Review Request: openshift-origin-cartridge-abstract - OpenShift Origin common cartridge components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844011 --- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-cartridge-abstract.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-cartridge-abstract-0.14.4-4.fc18.src.rpm - Added comments to requires that only one script depended on - Added rubygem requires (for jenkins) - Seperated jboss abstract into it's own rpm - added /usr/bin/mvn to requires for jboss absctract 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 840239] Review Request: transmageddon - Video transcoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840239 Yajo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yajo@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Yajo --- (In reply to comment #10) > Package imported and built. How to install? I'm using F17. I tried with `yum --releasever rawhide install transmageddon`, but it says that transmageddon-0.21-2.fc18.noarch.rpm is unsigned. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839751] Review Request: perl-Rose-DB - DBI wrapper and abstraction layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839751 Bill Pemberton changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bill Pemberton --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Rose-DB Short Description: DBI wrapper and abstraction layer Owners: wfp Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843910] Review Request: ktp-contact-runner - Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843910] Review Request: ktp-contact-runner - Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910 --- Comment #4 from Jan Grulich --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ktp-contact-runner Short Description: Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy Owners: jgrulich Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: jgrulich rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Rose-DateTime-0.537-4.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 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 843910] Review Request: ktp-contact-runner - Plasma runner for KDE Telepathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910 Radek Novacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Radek Novacek --- Now it's alright, setting 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
