[Bug 842107] Review Request: sugar-america - Game about the America geography
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842107 Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vasc...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com --- Unofficial review. It duplicate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838252 ? 1. sugar-america.src:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 1) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845743] Review Request: adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts - A set of OpenType fonts designed for user interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845743 --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch --- (In reply to comment #2) Alexis, your spec file looks good at a first glance but when I install the package the font is not shown in libreoffice writer (it's shown in the KDE Font Manager though). Any idea about this? I tried packaging the font last Friday myself and ended up with the same issue, too. Strange, the fonts are now shown in Libreoffice. Can't remember doing anything that could have helped except applying updates and then rebooting. (In reply to comment #4) I will review this package. What's stopping you? :) We're waiting ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845890] Review Request: python-django-tinymce - TinyMCE form field editor for Django applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845890 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Since, django-rename targets only on f18+, I'll change the SCM request. (cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Django_rename). Please take care to retire django-tinymce (cf. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life ) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-tinymce Short Description: TinyMCE form field editor for Django applications Owners: yuwang mrunge Branches: f18 InitialCC: yuwang mrunge -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844164] Review Request: mate-vfs - The MATE virtual file-system libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164 --- Comment #18 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Wolfgang, since you already have a -devel subpackage here, why don't you tag those file for -devel? I'm pretty sure, you don't need those files for mate-vfs to work, but you'll need those, to link other applications against it. Regarding this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844164] Review Request: mate-vfs - The MATE virtual file-system libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164 --- Comment #19 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Regarding libmatecomponent: This commit: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libmatecomponent.git/commit/?id=aa62af04deffd5762af81acbb3ac030da2419c32 adds a circular dependency (which has been dropped with a later commit by Rex http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libmatecomponent.git/commit/?id=fa4c7bedcae002dc4e8b7e55afc7e9439432dd7a ) That causes autoqa to fail. I can't see a link to mate-vfs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847504] Review Request: rubygem-scoped_search - Easily search you ActiveRecord models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847504 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- I'll take it for a review. Brenton, thanks for your preliminary input. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847777] Review Request: strata-sdk - Python library for Red Hat customer portal's RESTful service interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=84 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 will 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 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 MartinKG mgans...@alice.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-08-15 03:39:23 --- Comment #57 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- the package built successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=14505 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847763] Review Request: python-django-keyedcache - Utilities for simplified development of cache aware objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847763 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Matthias, thanks for your review. I will correct the mentioned points before importing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-keyedcache Short Description: Utilities for simplified development of cache aware objects Owners: bkabrda mrunge sundaram Branches: f18 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 842410] Review Request: kupfer - An interface for quick and convenient access to applications and their documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842410
--- Comment #2 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com ---
Hi,
I have just build RPM from srpm and when I want to launch preference dialog I
have an error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/ui/browser.py, line 1942, in mitem_handler
callback(ui_ctx)
File /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/kupferui.py, line 62, in show_preferences
win = preferences.GetPreferencesWindowController()
File /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/ui/preferences.py, line 880, in
GetPreferencesWindowController
_preferences_window = PreferencesWindowController()
File /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/ui/preferences.py, line 119, in __init__
self._update_alternative_combobox('terminal', terminal_combobox)
File /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/ui/preferences.py, line 788, in
_update_alternative_combobox
setctl.get_valid_alternative_ids(category_key), key=lambda t:t[1])
File /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/utils.py, line 78, in locale_sort
seq = seq if isinstance(seq, list) else list(seq)
File /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/core/settings.py, line 396, in
get_valid_alternative_ids
validator = self._alternative_validators[category_key]
KeyError: 'terminal'
Is it a Kupfer error or a pakaging error... That is the question ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- speed-dreams-2.1.0-3.trunk_r4810.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/speed-dreams-2.1.0-3.trunk_r4810.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 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- speed-dreams-2.1.0-3.trunk_r4810.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/speed-dreams-2.1.0-3.trunk_r4810.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 847777] Review Request: strata-sdk - Python library for Red Hat customer portal's RESTful service interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=84 --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- - BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel should be just python-setuptools. - Your Requies: python-lxml should specify the version as in setup.py (= 2.2.8). - Requires: python is useless, because the automatic dependency processor will pick that dependency up and specify it better: $ rpm -q -p --requires strata-sdk-1.0.1-0.fc19.noarch.rpm ... python(abi) = 2.7 ... So please drop the Requires: python line. - Is there a specific reason to run build and install the way you do and not doing just python setup.py [build|install]? If not, please use the standard way, as the current state is somehow confusing. - When there are tests present in the package, it is a good practice to run them in the %check section of the specfile. This ensures that the package works as deployed from source. Please do this. - The first release should be 1, not 0. - I'm not sure about the URL you provide. Typically, it should point to a page with some kind of the information about the project - I found no information about strata-sdk at your 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 847980] Review Request: maven-plugin-annotations - Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- I'll review this -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844164] Review Request: mate-vfs - The MATE virtual file-system libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164 --- Comment #20 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com --- (In reply to comment #18) Wolfgang, since you already have a -devel subpackage here, why don't you tag those file for -devel? I'm pretty sure, you don't need those files for mate-vfs to work, but you'll need those, to link other applications against it. Regarding this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages No one else thinks they belong in -devel http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/mageia/cauldron/x86_64/media/core/release/lib64gnome-vfs2_0-2.24.4-3.mga2.x86_64.html http://www.suse.com/LinuxPackages/packageRouter.jsp?product=serverversion=11service_pack=sp1architecture=ppcpackage_name=gnome-vfs2 http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/6/idpl/1542966 gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-7.fc17.x86_64 : The GNOME virtual file-system libraries Repo: @fedora Matched from: Filename: /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfs-test.so -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847504] Review Request: rubygem-scoped_search - Easily search you ActiveRecord models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847504
--- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
* Source0 should use version macro
- We are typically using
Source0: http://rubygems.org/gems/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem;
This will ease future updates.
* The dot files should be removed on different place IMO
- This is minor nit, but you remove the dot files in %build section, while
they should be removed in install section IMO or I personally prefer to
%exclude them in %files section. Please consider change
* Exclude gem_cache
- Again, this is matter of style, but I prefer to %exclude the gem_cache
in %files section.
- BTW it is not mandated by guidelines, just Fedora Review is too strict
about it (see Bug 848283).
* Licence and Readme
- I would keep the LICENSE and the README.rdoc on its original place,
i.e. they would be referenced in %files section as a %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
and %{gem_instdir}/README.rdoc. This will save you the mv in install
section and will keep your gem more aligned with other gems.
* Move files into -doc subpackage
- the .gemspec is definitely not used in runtime and should be move into
-doc subpackage
- What about the init.rb? This is used when the gem would be somehow used
as a Rails plugin. Not sure if that is somehow achievable.
- Is there chance to call the tasks from the application which uses the
library? If not, I would suggest to move tasks into -doc subpackage as
well.
* Test suite
- Please consider execution of test suite. It works, however there are
several tweaks needed:
BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/rspec
BuildRequires: rubygem(activerecord)
BuildRequires: rubygem(sqlite3)
%check
pushd .%{gem_instdir}
# Get rid of Bundler, not needed on Fedora.
sed -i /require 'bundler\/setup'/ d spec/spec_helper.rb
# sqlite3-ruby and sqlite3 are identical rubygems, where the former is
# older name for the gem. Would be nice if upstream support both
# reincarnations.
sed -i s/sqlite3-ruby/sqlite3/ spec/database.yml
rspec spec
popd
- Unfortunately, there remains one test failure. It seems to me that it might
be change in API? Please discuss with upstream.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847457] Review Request: rubygem-transaction-simple - Simple object transaction support for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847457 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@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 848314] New: Review Request: adcli - library and tool for joining Active Directory domain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848314 Bug ID: 848314 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: adcli - library and tool for joining Active Directory domain Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: st...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~stefw/scratch/adcli.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~stefw/scratch/adcli-0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: adcli is a library and tool for joining an Active Directory domain using standard LDAP and Kerberos calls. Fedora Account System Username: stefw This code was built as part of the realmd project, but has been requested to be an externally usable library and tool callable usable by. This will be optionally used by realmd to enroll machines in active directory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848314] Review Request: adcli - library and tool for joining Active Directory domain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848314 --- Comment #1 from Stef Walter st...@redhat.com --- The following adcli warnings showed up when building the adcli 0.1-1 RPM. These will be addressed upstream in a future/next adcli release. adcli.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adcli adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adutil.c adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adenroll.h adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adldap.c adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adutil.h adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adconn.c adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adconn.h adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adenroll.c adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/getsrvinfo.h adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/getsrvinfo.c adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adkrb5.c adcli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/adcli-0.1/library/adprivate.h adcli-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation adcli-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adcli-1/adcli/adenroll.h adcli-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adcli-1/adcli/adcli.h adcli-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adcli-1/adcli/adconn.h adcli-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adcli-1/adcli/adutil.h 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 2 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 847980] Review Request: maven-plugin-annotations - Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980
Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Java:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint maven-plugin-annotations
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Rpmlint
[Bug 847980] Review Request: maven-plugin-annotations - Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 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 847980] Review Request: maven-plugin-annotations - Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-plugin-annotations Short Description: Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations Owners: mizdebsk Branches: f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847504] Review Request: rubygem-scoped_search - Easily search you ActiveRecord models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847504 --- Comment #12 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-scoped_search/rubygem-scoped_search.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-scoped_search/rubygem-scoped_search-2.3.7-10.fc17.src.rpm I fixed that SOURCE0 I moved deletion of dot files to %install section I excluded that gem for now, I started discussion about it on ruby-sig mailing list I prefere to have LICENSE and README in /usr/share/doc/* as they are not need for runtime and all other package put these files in /usr/share/doc/*. I know it one more line in %install, but I can live it. If it is blocker, I will remove it. .gemspec to -doc - done init.rb to -doc - I hesitate. init.rb: Runs everytime the Rails app is started. Useful for mixing-in a helper module so all your views can use it. I think this is runtime thing. ad test suite. I added your code there, but commented for now. It fails misserably with 13 failures and lots deprecated warning on F17. I may later test it on rawhide. But I would prefer to skip it for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822929] Review Request: activemq-protobuf - ActiveMQ Protocol Buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822929 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: activemq-protobuf Short Description: ActiveMQ Protocol Buffers Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847457] Review Request: rubygem-transaction-simple - Simple object transaction support for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847457
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
* Version 1.4.0.2 available
- Is there any particular reason why not package the most recent version?
* Use %global in place of %define [1]
* Do not depend on rubygem(hoe)
- This is just development dependency. You don't need it for runtime and
there
is only tiny chance that you would need it for build time.
* Drop s.cert_chain in .gemspec
- I would say that better than changing the s.cert_chain would be to fallback
to default, i.e. drop the line:
sed -i '/s.cert_chain = nil/ d' %{gem_name}.gemspec
* Leave the History.txt Install.txt Licence.txt Readme.txt Manifest.txt on
original place
- Please consider to keep the files on the original place. I am not sure what
would be the benefit to move them into different place
* Move documentation into -doc subapackage
- Please consider move of History.txt, Install.txt, Readme.txt and
Manifest.txt files into -doc subpackage, since they are not required by
runtime.
* Exclude %{gem_cache}
- We discussed it before in different review, but I'd like to mention it
here, although I don't expect you will do that ;)
* export CONFIGURE_ARGS not needed
- Since this is not binary gem, the export CONFIGURE_ARGS could be omitted.
* Mark %{gem_docdir} as as %doc
* Please fix the executable bit
- rpmlint complains about following files:
rubygem-transaction-simple-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/transaction-simple-1.4.0/test/test_transaction_simple.rb
0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-transaction-simple-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/transaction-simple-1.4.0/test/test_all.rb 0644L
/usr/bin/env
rubygem-transaction-simple-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/transaction-simple-1.4.0/test/test_transaction_simple_group.rb
0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-transaction-simple-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/transaction-simple-1.4.0/test/test_transaction_simple_threadsafe.rb
0644L /usr/bin/env
rubygem-transaction-simple-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/transaction-simple-1.4.0/test/test_broken_graph.rb 0644L
/usr/bin/env
rubygem-transaction-simple-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/gems/gems/transaction-simple-1.4.0/Rakefile 0644L /usr/bin/env
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848314] Review Request: adcli - library and tool for joining Active Directory domain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848314 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||yan...@declera.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yan...@declera.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- License matches. Source matches. Library has a soname and seems reasonably versioned. Doesn't conflict with anything existing. 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 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- I'll review 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 845805] Review Request: rubygem-ttfunk - Font Metrics Parser for Prawn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805 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 #2 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 845805] Review Request: rubygem-ttfunk - Font Metrics Parser for Prawn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
--- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com ---
- Is there any benefit of moving the various doc files in %install section? The
optimal solution, I think, is to leave them in %{gem_instdir} and mark them as
%doc there.
- Also, please only leave files related to licensing (COPYING, GPLv2, GPLv3,
LICENSE) in the main package and move the others to the -doc subpackage.
- It is customary to exclude cached gem in the RPM packaged gems, please do so.
- %{gem_docdir} should be marked as %doc.
Otherwise the package looks good, so please fix these and post updated
SPEC/SRPM so I can take one more look and approve 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 844164] Review Request: mate-vfs - The MATE virtual file-system libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
--- Comment #21 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
Agreed, -devel symlink files are generally stuff that matches
%{_libdir}/lib*.so and are intended for linking. the stuff under
/usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules are just plugins
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822926] Review Request: katello-cli - client package for Katello
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com --- Fixes pushed upstream for review. https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/465 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
* Keep the Readme and License in the original location
- I.e. refer to them as a %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE and %{gem_instdir}/README.md
in the %files section and remove the rm
* Test suite
- Please consider running the test suite in the .%{gem_instdir}, which is
convenient place to do so. The test folder in %{_builddir} is just
remaining
of gem repackaging.
* Exclude %{gem_cache}
- As always ... ;)
* Use %{_bindir}/rspec
- This could be used in place of BUildRequires: rubygem-rspec
Nevertheless, non of these nits is blocker = 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 822929] Review Request: activemq-protobuf - ActiveMQ Protocol Buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822929 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 845890] Review Request: python-django-tinymce - TinyMCE form field editor for Django applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845890 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 847763] Review Request: python-django-keyedcache - Utilities for simplified development of cache aware objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847763 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 847980] Review Request: maven-plugin-annotations - Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 844164] Review Request: mate-vfs - The MATE virtual file-system libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164 --- Comment #22 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- OK, to get a solution, Wolfgang could you please document in the spec file: (e.g. in files-section) # these .so-files are plugins for mate-vfs /usr/lib64/mate-vfs-2.0/modules/ Then I'll approve 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 841243] Review Request: gstreamer1-plugins-base - GStreamer streaming media framework base plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841243
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bnoc...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bnoc...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
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 Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot}
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[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 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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
A few errors:
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
GStreamer - G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
GStreamer - G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
gstreamer1-plugins-base.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libgstfft-1.0.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
Filed as https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=681904
gstreamer1-plugins-base.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/gstreamer1-plugins-base-0.11.92/COPYING
Please file a bug
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer
- G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
GStreamer - G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
gstreamer1-plugins-base-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gst-plugins-base-0.11.92/gst-libs/gst/pbutils/missing-plugins.c
Please file a bug
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
GStreamer - G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US GStreamer - G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US gst - gs, gt, st
IGNORE gstreamer1-plugins-base-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gstreamer1-plugins-base-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
gst-discoverer-1.0
Filed as https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=681905
[x]: MUST Sources
[Bug 847504] Review Request: rubygem-scoped_search - Easily search you ActiveRecord models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847504 --- Comment #13 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #12) I prefere to have LICENSE and README in /usr/share/doc/* as they are not need for runtime and all other package put these files in /usr/share/doc/*. I know it one more line in %install, but I can live it. If it is blocker, I will remove it. Well, there is no other gem to my knowledge, which would move the files outside of their original locations, so if your package should be exceptional, so be it. It is up to you. .gemspec to -doc - done init.rb to -doc - I hesitate. init.rb: Runs everytime the Rails app is started. Useful for mixing-in a helper module so all your views can use it. I think this is runtime thing. Well, init.rb runs when you are using it as a Rails plugin, i.e. you will take the original code and place it into your applications vendor directory. If you are using the code as a gem, it has no meaning IMO. It even cannot get on load path, so there is no way how to use it. Moreover, if it would be possible to place it in the load path, it would be dangerous, because there would be more than one init.rb file and you could never know which one will be used. But since it does not harm anybody or anything, I'll keep it up to you. ad test suite. I added your code there, but commented for now. It fails misserably with 13 failures and lots deprecated warning on F17. I may later test it on rawhide. But I would prefer to skip it for now. Testing it right now in F17 [1], I got only one error, pretty same as in Rawhide. So I would suggest to enable the test suite and consult the error with upstream. [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4391927 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848353] New: Review Request: python-pthreading - Re-implement threading.Lock, RLock and Condition with libpthread
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848353 Bug ID: 848353 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-pthreading - Re-implement threading.Lock, RLock and Condition with libpthread Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dan...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://danken.fedorapeople.org/python-pthreading.spec SRPM URL: http://danken.fedorapeople.org/python-pthreading-0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The pthreading module provides Lock and Condition synchronization objects compatible with Python native threading module. The implementation, however, is based on POSIX thread library as delivered by the libpthread and has considerable performance benefits over Python 2.x's implementation. Fedora Account System Username: danken f18 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4391920 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842173] Review Request: wmpuzzle - A 4x4 puzzle on a 64x64 mini window
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842173 Alexey I. Froloff ra...@raorn.name changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ra...@raorn.name -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842173] Review Request: wmpuzzle - A 4x4 puzzle on a 64x64 mini window
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842173 Alexey I. Froloff ra...@raorn.name 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 842173] Review Request: wmpuzzle - A 4x4 puzzle on a 64x64 mini window
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842173 --- Comment #1 from Alexey I. Froloff ra...@raorn.name --- I will review 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 842173] Review Request: wmpuzzle - A 4x4 puzzle on a 64x64 mini window
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842173 Alexey I. Froloff ra...@raorn.name 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 839064] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-common - OpenShift Origin library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064
--- Comment #33 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
* It is good habit to bump release each version you submit for a review.
- This makes easier to track changes you have made.
- You could use rpmdev-bumpspec tool to bump the release.
* Now, I am a bit confused. The latest .spec you provided is different then the
.spec in your SRPM and moreover, the changelog does not corresponds with
Release specified in the header. So what is the most recent version?
- I am going to assume that the independent .spec file is the most recent
one.
* Keep the LICENSE and COPYRIGHT file on their original locations.
- I.e. reference them as a %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE and
%{gem_instdir}/COPYRIGHT in the %files section.
(In reply to comment #27)
* Macros for gem packaging
I added a comment to Bug 788001.
I would appreciate if you could follow the example I provided to you and use
new Fedora macros by default.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824478] Review Request: msp430mcu - Headers and linker scripts for MSP430 micro-controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478 Richard Marko rma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rma...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Richard Marko rma...@redhat.com --- Sorry, I've changed the component by accident. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847980] Review Request: maven-plugin-annotations - Maven Plugin Java 5 Annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-08-15 07:39:21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847763] Review Request: python-django-keyedcache - Utilities for simplified development of cache aware objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847763 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-15 07:42:27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839730] Review Request: sugar-chart - Sugar Activity for create charts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839730
--- Comment #6 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com ---
suggestions:
1) Correct or remove Group
sugar-colordeducto.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
2) better rename the source as %{name}.-%{version}.tar.gz
and patch as %{name}-remove-shebang.patch
and chance the license as GPLv3+
3) Change the license tag to GPLv3+
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
Please apply above mentioned suggestions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839730] Review Request: sugar-chart - Sugar Activity for create charts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839730 --- Comment #7 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- ignore the sentence of 'and chance the license as GPLv3+' under suggestion 2) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821146] Review Request: jruby-rack - Rack adapter for JRuby and Servlet Containers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821146 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Hi gil, What is the reason why not use the gem version or vice versa? Just wondering. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845890] Review Request: python-django-tinymce - TinyMCE form field editor for Django applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845890 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-15 07:53:49 --- Comment #10 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Since it seems that everything was built successfuly, I'm closing 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 845890] Review Request: python-django-tinymce - TinyMCE form field editor for Django applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845890 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840369 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-ruby-rc4 Short Description: Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm Owners: msuchy Branches: F-18, F-17, F-16, EL-6 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 847504] Review Request: rubygem-scoped_search - Easily search you ActiveRecord models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847504 --- Comment #14 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- Well, there is no other gem to my knowledge, which would move the files outside of their original locations, so if your package should be exceptional, so be it. It is up to you. Just few statistics from my machine: $ rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep -v /usr/share/doc|wc -l 145 $ rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep /usr/share/doc|wc -l 631 $ rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep -v /usr/share/doc |grep /gems/|wc -l 57 So I would say rubygems are the exception. Anyway - I will ask FESCO to standardize this. Well, init.rb ... You convinced me. Moving to -doc package ad test suite Indeed. But that is only because in minimal Koji environment is run test against only one database. If you have more librearies installed, more test fails. Anyway, will investigate 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 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 Marek Vavrusa marek.vavr...@nic.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marek.vavr...@nic.cz --- Comment #25 from Marek Vavrusa marek.vavr...@nic.cz --- I just found this page somehow, just co chime in regarding the not answering problem. It seems to be somewhat related to the package or kernel/system libraries in Fedora, as we had the same report from the RPM package user. I'm going to install it and, with a bit of luck, identify the problem shortly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824478] Review Request: msp430mcu - Headers and linker scripts for MSP430 micro-controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478 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 847504] Review Request: rubygem-scoped_search - Easily search you ActiveRecord models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847504 --- Comment #15 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #14) Well, there is no other gem to my knowledge, which would move the files outside of their original locations, so if your package should be exceptional, so be it. It is up to you. Just few statistics from my machine: $ rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep -v /usr/share/doc|wc -l 145 $ rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep /usr/share/doc|wc -l 631 $ rpm -qal |grep LICENSE |grep -v /usr/share/doc |grep /gems/|wc -l 57 So I would say rubygems are the exception. Anyway - I will ask FESCO to standardize this. I was always referring just to RubyGems. Other packages spread their files all over the place while gems keeps their files in one location. No problem to involve FESCo. ad test suite Indeed. But that is only because in minimal Koji environment is run test against only one database. If you have more librearies installed, more test fails. Anyway, will investigate it. Yes, minimal buildroot, that is what matters. More libraries means more DB adapters and that is not easy. I doubt that you will be successful to run the test suite against other databases, since their setup is typically a magnitude harder then setup sqlite3 DB. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819
--- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
Please consider running the test suite in the .%{gem_instdir},
I will address this in released 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 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 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 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-3.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 841199] Review Request: pyobd - OBD-II (SAE-J1979) compliant scantool software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841199 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.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 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848388] New: Review Request: liblognorm - Tool to normalize log data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848388 Bug ID: 848388 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: liblognorm - Tool to normalize log data Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mdar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://theinric.fedorapeople.org/liblognorm/liblognorm.spec SRPM URL: http://theinric.fedorapeople.org/liblognorm/liblognorm-0.3.4-1.src.rpm Description: Liblognorm is a tool to normalize log data. Fedora Account System Username: Mahaveer This is my third package and I need a sponsor. rpmlint logs: - [mdarade@mdarade SPECS]$ rpmlint -i liblognorm.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mdarade@mdarade SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/liblognorm-0.3.4-1.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mdarade@mdarade SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/liblognorm- liblognorm-0.3.4-1.x86_64.rpmliblognorm-devel-0.3.4-1.x86_64.rpm liblognorm-debuginfo-0.3.4-1.x86_64.rpm liblognorm-utils-0.3.4-1.x86_64.rpm [mdarade@mdarade SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/liblognorm-* liblognorm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. liblognorm-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Normalizer - Normalize, Normalizes, Normalized The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. liblognorm-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. liblognorm-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary normalizer Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [mdarade@mdarade SPECS]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848388] Review Request: liblognorm - Tool to normalize log data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848388 mahaveer darade mdar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-4.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845819] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-rc4 - Pure Ruby implementation of the RC4 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845819 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-4.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 845221] Review Request: ilbc - Internet Low Bitrate Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221 --- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #8) Heads up, folks. Unfortunately it's not 100% compatible with the old API - I'm working on this. Stay tuned! Hello All. I added a compatibility symlinks for older apps but it seems that some of them will require manual intervention anyway (fortunately changes will be quite simple and straightforward). Here is a new package: * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/ilbc.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/ilbc-1.1.1-2.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 841199] Review Request: pyobd - OBD-II (SAE-J1979) compliant scantool software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841199 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.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 848404] New: Review Request: python-django-filter - A Django application for allowing users to filter queryset dynamically
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848404 Bug ID: 848404 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-filter - A Django application for allowing users to filter queryset dynamically Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: bkab...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/django-filter/python-django-filter.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/django-filter/python-django-filter-0.5.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Django-filter provides a simple way to filter down a queryset based on parameters a user provides. Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4392513 Note: This a rename review request from django-filter. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848404] Review Request: python-django-filter - A Django application for allowing users to filter queryset dynamically
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848404 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840361 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841243] Review Request: gstreamer1-plugins-base - GStreamer streaming media framework base plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841243 Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gstreamer1-plugins-base Short Description: GStreamer streaming media framework base plugins Owners: foo bar Branches: f18 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 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #61 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- speed-dreams-2.1.0-5.trunk_r4810.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/speed-dreams-2.1.0-5.trunk_r4810.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 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: system-storage-manager New Branches: f18 Owners: lczerner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #20 from Lukáš Czerner lczer...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #19) Package Change Request == Package Name: system-storage-manager New Branches: f18 Owners: lczerner I need the f18 branch to request the bodhi update to add this new package to the updates-testing. Thanks! -Lukas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848208] Review Request: csync - a file synchroniser utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208 --- Comment #10 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- Hi Gregor, yes, the iniparser maintainer plans to update for 17 and 18, he said that he will do it today. you can view here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844960 Fixing csync 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 839064] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-common - OpenShift Origin library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064 --- Comment #34 from Brenton Leanhardt blean...@redhat.com --- Apologies for the confusion. It was certainly my intention to bump the spec. SRPM: http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-openshift-origin-common/201208150950/rubygem-openshift-origin-common-0.13.3-6.fc18.src.rpm Spec: http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-openshift-origin-common/201208150950/rubygem-openshift-origin-common.spec To avoid the files listed twice warning I actually just removed the LICENSE and COPYRIGHT from the files section. That way they will get shipped in the gem_instdir. If that's not what you meant just let me know. As for the macros provided by rubygems-devel, my main problem with using them is that I'm also planning to maintain this package for EPEL soon and it seems like it would needlessly complicate the specfile for now since those macros aren't available for RHEL 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 848421] New: Review Request: pgRouting - Provides routing functionality to PostGIS/PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848421 Bug ID: 848421 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: pgRouting - Provides routing functionality to PostGIS/PostgreSQL Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: volke...@gmx.at Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/pgRouting.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/pgRouting-1.05-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: pgRouting extends the PostGIS / PostgreSQL geospatial database to provide geospatial routing functionality. It provides functions for: - Shortest Path Dijkstra: routing algorithm without heuristics - Shortest Path A-Star: routing for large datasets (with heuristics) - Shortest Path Shooting-Star: routing with turn restrictions (with heuristics) - Driving Distance calculation (Isolines) Fedora Account System Username: volter This is a re-review. The package was deprecated. Please see http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-August/170796.html for details. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4392662 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847406] Review Request: clean-extra-utils - A collection of extra libraries and utilities for the Clean programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847406] Review Request: clean-extra-utils - A collection of extra libraries and utilities for the Clean programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847406] Review Request: clean-extra-utils - A collection of extra libraries and utilities for the Clean programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847406] Review Request: clean-extra-utils - A collection of extra libraries and utilities for the Clean programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847406] Review Request: clean-extra-utils - A collection of extra libraries and utilities for the Clean programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.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 754023] Review Request: mumpot - GTK mapping application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754023 --- Comment #10 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- I haven't looked into it since. We can close the ticket for now, if you like. Sorry for the long delay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848423] New: Review Request: erlang-rtplib - Erlang RTP/RTCP codec library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848423 Bug ID: 848423 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: erlang-rtplib - Erlang RTP/RTCP codec library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: lemen...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-rtplib.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-rtplib-0.5.18-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Erlang RTP/RTCP codec library. Fedora Account System Username: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848423] Review Request: erlang-rtplib - Erlang RTP/RTCP codec library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848423 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||845221 Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- NotReady since not all dependent packages are available 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 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 Blocks||848423 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754023] Review Request: mumpot - GTK mapping application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754023 --- Comment #11 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- If you think you'll have a candidate package by, say, the end of the year, then I'm willing to keep waiting. If you think it will be 2013 or beyond, though, we should probably close it for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823458] Review Request: erlang-erlsha2 - SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512 implemented in Erlang NIFs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823458 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||848423 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848423] Review Request: erlang-rtplib - Erlang RTP/RTCP codec library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848423 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||823458, 652648 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847436] Review Request: spherical-cow-backgrounds - Spherical Cow desktop backgrounds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847436 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-08-15 11:05:26 -- 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 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 --- Comment #14 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com --- License: Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. So, I would tag it as: Artistic 2.0 and ISC and WTFPL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841243] Review Request: gstreamer1-plugins-base - GStreamer streaming media framework base plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841243 Brian Pepple bdpep...@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 841243] Review Request: gstreamer1-plugins-base - GStreamer streaming media framework base plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841243 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #16 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com --- I guess everything is correct now. 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 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- system-storage-manager-0.2-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/system-storage-manager-0.2-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841199] Review Request: pyobd - OBD-II (SAE-J1979) compliant scantool software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841199 --- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #5) Git done (by process-git-requests). Thanks Jon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
