[Bug 843029] Review Request: foxtrotgps - Mapping and GPS application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843029 Till Bubeck t.bub...@reinform.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Till Bubeck t.bub...@reinform.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: foxtrotgps Short Description: Mapping and GPS application Owners: bubeck Branches: f17 InitialCC: pbrobinson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845342] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-hmac - provides common interface to HMAC functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845342
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com ---
There are two things that I found wrong on this package:
- Wrong provides/obsoletes. According to [1], they should look like this:
Provides: rubygem(hmac) = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: rubygem(hmac) 0.4.0-6
- The specfile still has name rubygem-hmac.spec, although it should now be
rubygem-ruby-hmac.spec.
Otherwise the package looks good, so it is APPROVED, but please fix the above
before comitting to dist-git.
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_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 844721] Review request: python-django-flash - A Django extension to provide support for Rails-like flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|django-flash to |Review request: |python-django-flash |python-django-flash - A ||Django extension to provide ||support for Rails-like ||flash -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845245] Review Request: cura-providers - Set of basic CIM providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845245 --- Comment #4 from Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://rnovacek.fedorapeople.org/cura-providers.spec SRPM URL: http://rnovacek.fedorapeople.org/cura-providers-0.0.1-2.fc17.src.rpm * Fri Aug 03 2012 Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com 0.0.1-2 - BR: cim-schema - Don't clean buildroot in install - Fix typo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844325] Review Request: python-rpi-gpio - Class to control the GPIO on a Raspberry Pi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844325 --- Comment #2 from Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-rpi-gpio Short Description: Python module to control the GPIO on a Raspberry Pi Owners: kushal Branches: f17 InitialCC: kushal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844325] Review Request: python-rpi-gpio - Class to control the GPIO on a Raspberry Pi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844325 Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com 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 787364] Review Request: clipgrab - Streaming videos plate-forms grabber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787364 --- Comment #11 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Did you find the time to ask yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844721] Review request: python-django-flash - A Django extension to provide support for Rails-like flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721
--- Comment #5 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com ---
Hi Luis,
there is still one thing that I would like to see in the specfile: running the
unittests. It is as simple as running (in the %check section)
%{__python} setup.py test
It seems however that some of the tests fail with new Django (1.4 and above).
Could you please investigate that and fix the package/propose changes to
upstream?
(BTW I'm going on vacation starting tomorrow, so I hope you won't mind waiting
a week before going on with this review...)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844963] Review Request: cura-storage - CIM providers for storage management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844963 Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(jonstanley@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #5 from Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com --- Jon, can we proceed with the review? I want the package in Fedora before Alpha freeze. Thanks in advance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845245] Review Request: cura-providers - Set of basic CIM providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845245 Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com --- Now it's perfect. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845458] New: Review Request: python-django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845458 Bug ID: 845458 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: python-django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mru...@matthias-runge.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-kombu.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-kombu-0.9.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Django application that enables you to use the Django database as the message store for Kombu. Kombu is an AMQP messaging framework for Python. AMQP is the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol, an open standard protocol for message orientation, queuing, routing, reliability and security. Fedora Account System Username: mrunge please note: this is a review required for package rename. [mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-django-kombu.spec ../SRPMS/python-django-kombu-0.9.4-1.fc17.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/python-django-kombu-0.9.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845458] Review Request: python-django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845458 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840363 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845458] Review Request: python-django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845458 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845245] Review Request: cura-providers - Set of basic CIM providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845245 Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cura-providers Short Description: Set of basic CIM providers Owners: rnovacek Branches: f17 f16 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 845458] Review Request: python-django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845458 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- I'll take this for a 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 845465] New: Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 Bug ID: 845465 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mru...@matthias-runge.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-celery.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-celery-3.0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: django-celery provides Celery integration for Django; Using the Django ORM and cache backend for storing results, autodiscovery of task modules for applications listed in INSTALLED_APPS, and more. Celery is a task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well. The execution units, called tasks, are executed concurrently on a single or more worker servers. Tasks can execute asynchronously (in the background) or synchronously (wait until ready). Fedora Account System Username: mrunge please note, this is a review required for package rename. [mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-django-celery.spec ../SRPMS/python-django-celery-3.0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/python-django-celery-3.0.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-django-celery.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend - backed, back end, back-end python-django-celery.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autodiscovery - auto discovery, auto-discovery, discovery python-django-celery.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend - backed, back end, back-end python-django-celery.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autodiscovery - auto discovery, auto-discovery, discovery python-django-celery.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary djcelerymon 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845458] Review Request: python-django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845458 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- This package complies with FPG, builds fine and the specfile is clean. I have nothing to complain about. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845458] Review Request: python-django-kombu - Kombu transport using the Django database as a message store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845458 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Thank you very much! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-kombu Short Description: Kombu transport using the Django Owners: mrunge Branches: devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842667] Review Request: simple - Asynchronous HTTP server for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842667 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/simpleweb/files/simpleweb/4.1.21/ chose simple-4.1.21.tar.gz and click on i (info ico-info, view details) SHA1:e71731163f01fc11b01d46f66828e031048fbaa7 MD5: c7b22ff951e9ffab36954ea93bbbcf28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840359 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845012] Review Request: spock - A testing and specification framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845012 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 845012] Review Request: spock - A testing and specification framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845012 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- spock-0.6-0.2.groovy.1.8.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spock-0.6-0.2.groovy.1.8.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 844740] Review Request: qmmp-plugin-pack - A set of extra plugins for Qmmp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844740 --- Comment #3 from Karel Volný kvo...@redhat.com --- the execstack issue got fixed: http://code.google.com/p/qmmp/source/diff?spec=svn2864old=2506r=2863format=unidiffpath=%2Ftrunk%2Fqmmp-plugin-pack%2Fsrc%2FInput%2Fffap%2Fx86inc.asm I'd prefer not to backport the patch, as I suppose I'll pick up a new release before this will get into some Fedora stable branch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- I'll take it for a 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 832130] Review Request: cups-filters - OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130
--- Comment #8 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #7)
This must be a problem on your side.
Maybe installing hunspell-en or aspell-en ?
I installed hunspell-en and got the following output for
cups-filters-1.0.20-3.fc17.src.rpm
cups-filters.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backends - back ends,
back-ends, backhands
cups-filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends - back
ends, back-ends, backhands
cups-filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centric - eccentric,
centrist, concentric
cups-filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow - work
flow, work-flow, workforce
Please check spelling of these words.
See comment #1. This was already commented in bug #225670, comment #4
(backend/serial used to be part of CUPS).
I checked the comment and it's OK.
I added a comment.
I checked cups-filters-1.0.20-3.fc17 and it is OK now.
Yes, it does. You can see the values of CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS for example here
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/96/4350096/build.log
I think that you need to use the %{optflags} or $RPM_OPT_FLAGS only if you
want to override them, e.g.
CXXFLAGS=%{optflags} -fno-strict-aliasing make
I've also added a --disable-silent-rules switch to ./configure so you can
see that the flags
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
RPMMacros#Build_flags_macros_and_variables) are really used during building.
You are right, compiler uses proper flags.
It's ok, see above.
It is OK, as stated above.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844013] Review Request: openshift-origin-broker - OpenShift Origin broker components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844013
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
There is no mention of the origin of the favicon :
Source1: favicon
I am also surprised by some permission, do we want apache to be able to modify
all those files :
%defattr(-,apache,apache,-)
%{brokerdir}
%{htmldir}/broker
%config(noreplace) %{brokerdir}/config/environments/production.rb
%config(noreplace) %{brokerdir}/config/environments/development.rb
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/httpd/conf.d/00_stickshift_proxy.conf
%attr(0664,-,-) %ghost %{brokerdir}/log/production.log
%attr(0664,-,-) %ghost %{brokerdir}/log/development.log
%attr(0664,-,-) %ghost %{brokerdir}/httpd/logs/error_log
%attr(0664,-,-) %ghost %{brokerdir}/httpd/logs/access_log
I see why for logs, but the rest seems to me rather strange, if we run process
under the apache uid, they shouldn't mess with anything like rails config and
such, in case of compromise of the apache process.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760696] Review Request: rubygem-mongo - Ruby driver for the MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #11 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Removing block on FEsponsor, since troy is now in packager group, according to FAS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760696] Review Request: rubygem-mongo - Ruby driver for the MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||845021 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845021] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-mongo - OpenShift plugin for mongo authentication service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845021 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||760696 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- - Your changelog mentions updating to version 3.0.5, but the actual version is 3.0.4, please fix this. - The package includes some tests, have you tried running them? It seems that after some playing with them, they may be runnable via nosetests, although I'm not sure it's doable without django_nose (which we don't have in 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 832130] Review Request: cups-filters - OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130 --- Comment #9 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #7) cups-filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends cups-filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centric cups-filters.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow Please check spelling of these words. They all seem good to me. I don't see anything else to fix, so can you approve the package ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845498] New: Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498 Bug ID: 845498 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: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rnova...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://rnovacek.fedorapeople.org/cura-networking.spec SRPM URL: http://rnovacek.fedorapeople.org/cura-networking-0.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: cura-networking is set of CMPI providers for network management using Common Information Model (CIM). Fedora Account System Username: rnovacek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830784] Review Request: leiningen - Clojure project automation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830784 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- (In reply to comment #4) There is a few issues : %global vendor define the vendor tag by error, and this is forbidden, so i think the easiest fix is to rename it ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ) Yup, we've renamed that tag in our other packages to upstream, this one hasn't been touched yet since we were waiting on a fix for the Maven package. Sadly the Maven maintainer has marked that as WONTFIX. The test are not run at build time, is there a reason ( like it need network ) ? The package is also not installable on f17, so I didn't test it yet, and there is various maven related issue, and for that, i need to read and digest the java /maven policy. We're most likely switching to packaging Leiningen 2, which does not need Maven. Hang on tight and I'll update this once I have a package to test. 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 830784] Review Request: leiningen - Clojure project automation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830784 Bug 830784 depends on bug 830933, which changed state. Bug 830933 Summary: maven2 needs to provide maven-artifact as a subpackage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830933 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832130] Review Request: cups-filters - OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- Package seems OK for me, package is APPROVED. Changing fedora‑review to + -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760696] Review Request: rubygem-mongo - Ruby driver for the MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696
--- Comment #12 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
There is a few things to fix :
- no %check ( maybe done on purpose, a comment would be nice )
- not the latest version, according to the website.
The rest is good otherwise.
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.
[-]: 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:
Apache (v2.0) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/760696-rubygem-
mongo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- I'm honestly sorry! I had put those files on my webspace and ran rpmlint later. I just have forgotten to replace those files the corrected versions. It's done now. I must say, didn't try the checks yet, good news is, we already have django-nose: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-django-nose Sadly, running those tests is not that easy as I thought. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832130] Review Request: cups-filters - OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cups-filters Short Description: OpenPrinting CUPS filters and backends Owners: twaugh jpopelka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845221] Review Request: ilbc - Internet Low Bitrate Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Heads up, folks. Unfortunately it's not 100% compatible with the old API - I'm working on this. Stay tuned! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498 Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsafr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsafr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Ok, here is how to run the tests: 1) install all the requirements (django, django-nose, celery, mock) 2) patch the tests/settings.py to leave out the coverage stuff (starting line 37) 3) run python setup.py test That does the trick for me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760696] Review Request: rubygem-mongo - Ruby driver for the MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696
--- Comment #13 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
%doc %{gem_instdir}/mongo.gemspec
%doc %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
Should not be marked as a doc IMO.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498
Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com ---
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.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
/usr/lib64/cmpi/libcmpiCura_Networking.so is CMPI plugin for Pegasus or
SFCB.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST 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 If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN, *No copyright* GENERATED FILE, GPL (v2 or
later) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/jsafrane/tmp/845498-cura-networking/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.
[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.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD 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 Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- yepp, here too, without patching. You need latest billiard, celery and kombu from rawhide. Sadly, the builders don't have it (yet). SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-celery-3.0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-celery.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 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498 Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cura-networking Short Description: CIM providers for network management Owners: rnovacek Branches: f17 f16 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 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 --- Comment #6 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Oh, sure, you also install nose-cover3 so you don't need to patch the tests. I tried a scratch build and it seems that koji already has the newest versions, but you're missing BR: python-mock [1]. Would you mind adding it and putting the spec + srpm one last time in here, so that I can check before finally approving? Thanks! [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4354079 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- OK, that's it. [1] I would have sworn to have python-mock included also, but you're right, it was missing! SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-celery.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-celery-3.0.4-3.fc17.src.rpm [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4354083 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Great. I don't have any other objections. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845465] Review Request: python-django-celery - Django Celery Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845465 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Thank you very much! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-celery Short Description: Django Celery Integration Owners: mrunge Branches: devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845115] Review request: python-django-recaptcha - A Django application for adding ReCAPTCHA to a form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845115 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|python-django-recaptcha |Review request: ||python-django-recaptcha - A ||Django application for ||adding ReCAPTCHA to a form -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841089] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets - Rack-based asset packaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841089 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-03 06:48:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840714] Review Request: python-django-threaded-multihost - Django Module to enable multi-site awareness in Django apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840714 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-03 06:49:26 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839301] Package Rename Review Request: python-django-evolution - Schema evolution for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839301 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-03 06:50:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834507] Review Request: python-fuzzywuzzy - Fuzzy string matching in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834507 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-03 06:51:34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834501] Review Request: python-sure - Assertion toolbox for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834501 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-03 06:51:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 745993] Review Request: rubygem-useragent - HTTP User Agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745993 --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Martyn, is this still active? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845197] Review Request: rubygem-pry - An IRB alternative and runtime developer console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845197 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-pry-0.9.10-1.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 842778] Review Request: avgtime - Time a command and print average, standard deviation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842778 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-03 07:24:15 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- avgtime-0-0.1.git20120724.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 836403] Review Request: jbossxb - JBoss XML Binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836403 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-03 07:24:34 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jbossxb-2.0.3-1.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 843404] Review Request: javaparser - Java 1.5 Parser and AST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843404 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- javaparser-1.0.8-1.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 825450] Review Request: snmpcheck - An utility to get information via SNMP protocols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825450 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- snmpcheck-1.8-4.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 844043] Review Request: objectweb-asm4 - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- objectweb-asm4-4.0-2.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 836940] Review Request: sshj - SSHv2 library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836940 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-03 07:26:44 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sshj-0.8.1-1.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 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-common-1.4.0-8.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 831749] Review Request: rubygem-sshkey - Generate ssh key-pairs using ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-2.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 836850] Review Request: truezip - Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-03 07:29:48 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- truezip-7.5.5-6.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 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-common-1.4.0-8.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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- classycle-1.4-2.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 844011] Review Request: openshift-origin-cartridge-abstract - OpenShift Origin common cartridge components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844011 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openshift-origin-cartridge-abstract-0.14.4-5.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 845540] New: Review Request: xapool - open source XA JDBC Pool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845540 Bug ID: 845540 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: xapool - open source XA JDBC Pool Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/xapool.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/xapool-1.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: XAPool is a software component which allows to: - Store objects with a Generic Pool - Export a DataSource (javax.sql.DataSource) - Export a XADataSource (javax.sql.XADataSource) Fedora Account System Username:gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843767] Review Request: python-pandas - Python library providing high-performance data analysis tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843767 --- Comment #3 from Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: http://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pandas.spec New SRPM URL: http://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-pandas-0.8.1-2.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 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #48 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Dan, pls give me a favor. Change Requires like in version 1.4.0-6 We need pkgconfig here, and we don't need intltool glib2-devel gtk-doc for every other mate application. Do it like this. BuildRequires:automake autoconf Requires: automake autoconf libtool gettext pkgconfig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Comment #49 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- uhm, you're requiring automake autoconf libtool and pkgconfig at runtime, and not during build? Really? Taken from here: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-common.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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 --- Comment #59 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk --- As far as I remember it is ok to put the license file in a common as long as every other package requires the -common package. So that the license file is install no matter what sub package you are installing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #50 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- (In reply to comment #49) uhm, you're requiring automake autoconf libtool and pkgconfig at runtime, and not during build? Really? Taken from here: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-common.spec This is the sense of mate-common, adding some main requries for building mate packages. Otherwise we have to add automake autoconf libtool gettext and pkgconfig as BuildRquires in every other 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 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #51 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- (In reply to comment #50) (In reply to comment #49) uhm, you're requiring automake autoconf libtool and pkgconfig at runtime, and not during build? Really? Taken from here: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-common.spec This is the sense of mate-common, adding some main requries for building mate packages. Otherwise we have to add automake autoconf libtool gettext and pkgconfig as BuildRquires in every other package. For running ./autogen.sh for building configure and make files of mate packages, you need this requires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|lemen...@gmail.com |bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se
Flags||needinfo?(jul...@vgai.de)
--- Comment #10 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se ---
Peter says he doesn't mind if I take over this ticket, so here's my formal
review:
Generic MUST Items:
· rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
templates_parser.src: W: invalid-url Source0: templates_parser-11.6.0.tar.xz
templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build
templates_parser-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/templates_parser-11.6.0/.build
templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/templates2ada
templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary templates2ada
templates_parser-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary templatespp
templates_parser.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/templates_parser/libtemplates_parser-11.6.0.so
templates_parser.x86_64: W: no-documentation
· There is no URL to the upstream source because it was taken from Git.
· The hidden directory in the debuginfo package is odd, but not something a
packager should be required to change.
· Executable stack is OK as noted in the Ada packaging guidelines.
· There are no documentation files to include in the base package. (README
contains only installation instructions.)
About man pages, see the separate point below. None of the other warnings are
blocking issues.
· The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
→ OK.
· The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
→ OK. The names match.
· The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
→ OK.
· The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
→ OK. The license is GPLv2+ with exceptions (GMGPL) according to the source
file headers.
· The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
→ OK.
· 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.
→ N/A. There is no separate license file.
· The spec file must be written in American English.
→ OK. The grammar isn't perfect but it's comprehensible.
· The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
→ OK.
· The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
→ OK. The contents of the tarball are identical to what I got from upstream
Git.
· The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
→ OK. It builds in Koji on at least x86 and x86-64.
· If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
→ OK. GNAT_arches is used.
· All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
→ OK.
· The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
→ N/A. No translations are included.
· 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.
→ OK. ldconfig is called.
· The package must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
→ OK.
· 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.
→ OK. The package isn't relocatable.
· The package must own all directories that it creates.
→ OK.
· The package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
→ OK.
· Permissions on files must be set properly.
→ OK.
· The package must consistently use macros.
→ OK.
· The package must contain code, or permissable content.
→ OK. Code.
· Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
→ OK. The documentation can reasonably be considered to not be large.
· If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
→ OK.
· Static libraries must be in a -static package.
→ N/A. Only shared libraries are packaged.
· Development files must be in a -devel package.
→ OK.
· In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
→ OK.
· Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
→ OK.
· Packages containing GUI applications must include a
[Bug 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #52 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Thank you for your explanation. I absolutely understand, why requirements are necessary. The difference between BuildRequirements and Requirements is, that you need BuildRequire during build, requirements are not needed for build, but during runtime. Sadly, this didn't answer, why automake autoconf etc. are not required during build time, but for runtime. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844154] Review Request: libmatekeyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 844154] Review Request: libmatekeyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libmatekeyring-1.4.0-7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmatekeyring-1.4.0-7.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 845568] New: Review Request: vim-command-t - An extremely fast, intuitive mechanism for opening files in VIM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845568 Bug ID: 845568 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: vim-command-t - An extremely fast, intuitive mechanism for opening files in VIM Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: vondr...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/vim-command-t.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/vim-command-t-1.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Command-T plug-in for VIM provides an extremely fast, intuitive mechanism for opening files with a minimal number of keystrokes. It's named Command-T because it is inspired by the Go to File window bound to Command-T in TextMate. Files are selected by typing characters that appear in their paths, and are ordered by an algorithm which knows that characters that appear in certain locations (for example, immediately after a path separator) should be given more weight. Fedora Account System Username: vondruch Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4354682 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839851] Review Request: mate-common -- mate common build files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839851 --- Comment #53 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- (In reply to comment #52) Thank you for your explanation. I absolutely understand, why requirements are necessary. The difference between BuildRequirements and Requirements is, that you need BuildRequire during build, requirements are not needed for build, but during runtime. Sadly, this didn't answer, why automake autoconf etc. are not required during build time, but for runtime. ??? If i follow your link was given in comment 49, i see BuildRequires:automake autoconf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845379] Review Request: eclipse-swtbot - UI and functional testing tool for SWT and Eclipse based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845379 Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com 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 736717] Review Request: lcmaps - Grid (X.509) and VOMS credentials to local account mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 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 845591] New: Review Request: qwt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845591 Bug ID: 845591 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: qwt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qwt/qwt5.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qwt/qwt5-5.2.2-20.fc17.src.rpm Description: Qt Widgets for Technical Applications Fedora Account System Username: rdieter This is a parallel-installable qwt version 5, to make way for qwt-6 (see bug #697168) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845591] Review Request: qwt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845591 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||697168, 656997 ||(kde-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845379] Review Request: eclipse-swtbot - UI and functional testing tool for SWT and Eclipse based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845379
--- Comment #1 from Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com ---
Note : I've used the Java package review template as a guide, and ignored some
issues where they clear don't apply, as well as consulting the package review
guide for Eclipse plugins.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
eclipse-swtbot.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
eclipse-swtbot.src: E: description-line-too-long C SWTBot is a Java based
UI/functional testing tool for testing SWT and Eclipse based applications.
eclipse-swtbot.src: E: description-line-too-long C SWTBot provides APIs that
are simple to read and write. The APIs also hide the complexities
eclipse-swtbot.src: E: description-line-too-long C involved with SWT and
Eclipse. This makes it suitable for UI/functional testing by everyone, not just
developers.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: EPL
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sha256sum this package:
5dffc107eba4e0ab1ac11e001d1649f00647471e0dab95866f591064f9a26ff1
sha256sum upstream package:
5dffc107eba4e0ab1ac11e001d1649f00647471e0dab95866f591064f9a26ff1
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[-] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[-] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
fedora-rawhide-i386
Also run with /usr/bin/fedora-review -n eclipse-swtbot -m fedora-rawhide-i386
=== Issues ===
1.[!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
Source includes jars in org.eclipse.swtbot.releng/externals/plugins. According
to Java, and General guidelines they should be removed, but
[Bug 845596] New: Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Bug ID: 845596 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: lkund...@v3.sk Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/jackrabbit.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/jackrabbit-2.4.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The Apache Jackrabbit content repository is a fully conforming implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API (JCR, specified in JSR 170 and 283). A content repository is a hierarchical content store with support for structured and unstructured content, full text search, versioning, transactions, observation, and more. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Note that this only packages webdav subpackage at this point, I don't really care about getting the rest in. If anyone else does, he's more than welcome to extend the package. Description: This is the WebDAV Library component of the Apache Jackrabbit project. This component provides interfaces and common utility classes used for building a WebDAV server or client. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845591] Review Request: qwt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845591 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Mind you, to make this parallel-installable, I had to change the library name and header location, so some applications will require patching to build against this abi-incompatble and slightly-api-incompatible version. pkgs I've tested so far include: smokeqt (and friends), qwtpolar (patch prep'd). I added a pkgconfig qwt5-qt4.pc file here, to ease the porting effort, ie, so one can simply use output from pkgconfig --cflags --libs qwt5-qt4 and to build/link so everything 'just works'. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837726] Review Request: eclipse-jbosstools - A set of Eclipse plugins that supports JBoss and related technology
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 837726] Review Request: eclipse-jbosstools - A set of Eclipse plugins that supports JBoss and related technology
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- eclipse-jbosstools-3.3.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-jbosstools-3.3.1-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838901] Review Request: autotest-framework - Framework for fully automated testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901
Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpope...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpope...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- LGPLv2.1+ isn't a correct short name. Use LGPLv2+ instead.
- client/shared/pexpect.py and frontend/shared/json_html_formatter.py are under
MIT license, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro.
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[!]: MUST Package obeys FHS.
These FHS issues were discussed in bug #548522. Can you make a summary here
what's been the progress since then.
[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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
The output is quite long but most of it is about non-standard-uid/gid of
various files, which is caused by %defattr(-,autotest,autotest,-).
It was discussed in bug #548522 too.
Would it be possible to make a summary here, why is it set so ?
There's however one thing that could be fixed easily I think:
W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autotest/client/tools/setidle.c
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[!]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
You need to obey
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#New_Packages
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note:
If you don't aim at EPEL, then you can safely remove:
BuildRoot and python_sitelib definition, %clean section, cleaning of buildroot
in %install, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review
[Bug 845628] New: Review Request: mate-mime-data - mate-mime-data provides the file type recognition data files for mate-vfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845628 Bug ID: 845628 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: mate-mime-data - mate-mime-data provides the file type recognition data files for mate-vfs Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: chat-to...@raveit.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc18/SPECS/mate-mime-data.spec SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc18/SRPM/mate-mime-data-1.4.0-6.fc18.src.rpm Description: mate-mime-data provides the file type recognition data files for mate-vfs Fedora Account System Username: raveit65 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845628] Review Request: mate-mime-data - mate-mime-data provides the file type recognition data files for mate-vfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845628 --- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Created attachment 602164 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=602164action=edit switch mime-data from openoffice to libreoffice, etc 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 845628] Review Request: mate-mime-data - mate-mime-data provides the file type recognition data files for mate-vfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845628 --- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Created attachment 602165 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=602165action=edit switch mime-data from openoffice to libreoffice, etc 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 845628] Review Request: mate-mime-data - mate-mime-data provides the file type recognition data files for mate-vfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845628 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Created attachment 602166 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=602166action=edit switch mime-data from openoffice to libreoffice, etc 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 838901] Review Request: autotest-framework - Framework for fully automated testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901 --- Comment #9 from Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues l...@redhat.com --- [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. ^ Not a GUI application, not applicable. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package ^ I don't think this applies either. [!]: MUST Package obeys FHS. Extensive work was done on this one, now entry points are installed on /usr/bin, test modules are 'read only', theree's a setup.py that installs everything to the correct paths. In fact, we took over one year working on the issues, and the autotest changelog can show all the changes made just for the sake of getting this package accepted. [!]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. I don't understand, we ship a systemd service file in the autotest source tree, and I believe the rpm package leverages 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 838901] Review Request: autotest-framework - Framework for fully automated testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901 --- Comment #10 from Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues l...@redhat.com --- By the way, we *do* aim for EPEL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
