[Bug 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 --- Comment #14 from Robin Lee --- A typo found in my review. The line should be: * Desc for examples may be 'This package contains programming examples distributed with official Wt release.' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 --- Comment #13 from Robin Lee --- Created attachment 605306 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=605306&action=edit rpmlint output on all the rpm files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 --- Comment #12 from Robin Lee --- Created attachment 605305 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=605305&action=edit Files with different licenses -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #11 from Robin Lee ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: wt-examples-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm :
/usr/lib64/Wt/examples/blog/BlogRSSFeed.h wt-
.
(OK. Those are in an package of example programs)
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
Note: Please set cmake macro USE_SYSTEM_SQLITE3 to use system sqlite
[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 %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[?]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Please check the attachment 'licensecheck-different.txt' for files
with a different license.
[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 No %config files under /usr.
[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 Package must own all directories that it creates.
The following directories not owned:
%{_datadir}/wt/
%{_datadir}/wt/resources/
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Note: wt-dbo does not require wt. And so keep a copy of license in wt-dbo.
[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.
[?]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package build
[Bug 830593] Review Request: perl-B-Generate - Create your own op trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830593 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(iarn...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #3 from Robin Lee --- Upstream 1.45 fixed the incorrect-fsf-address issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823959] Review Request: directory-project - Apache Directory Project Root pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823959 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- directory-project-27-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 847435] Review Request: perl-X11-Protocol-Other - Miscellaneous X11::Protocol helpers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847435 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Robin Lee --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-X11-Protocol-Other Short Description: Miscellaneous X11::Protocol helpers Owners: cheeselee Branches: f18 f17 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839097] Review Request: python-flask-autoindex - A mod_autoindex for Flask
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839097 --- Comment #4 from pcpa --- I updated the package to have proper build requires, but still needs python-flask-silk reviewed and built for a "proper" review. Update: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-autoindex.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-autoindex-0.4.1-3.fc19.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 839098] Review Request: python-flask-silk - Adds silk icons to your Flask application or module, or extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839098 --- Comment #2 from pcpa --- Package updated to build cleanly with mock (in a clean chroot) instead of previously just testing with rpmbuild, on a "dirty" rawhide system. Updated package: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-silk.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-silk-0.1.1-3.fc19.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 806516] Review Request: python-django-annoying - Eliminate annoying things in the Django framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806516 --- Comment #11 from Praveen Kumar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-annoying Short Description: Eliminate annoying things in the Django framework Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f18 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 839071] Review Request: python-flask-babel - Adds i18n/l10n support to Flask applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839071 --- Comment #4 from pcpa --- Can you please review it again now? I probably built the initial review request too fast, when putting all bits in place to get a experimental sagemath 5.2 package. But now build has been properly tested under a clean chroot, instead of only with rpmbuild. New package: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-babel-0.8-3.fc19.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 848211] Review Request: mirall - owncloud desktop client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848211 --- Comment #5 from Joseph Marrero --- this is the new version I splited the apps, to mirall-common wich is a dependency of owncloud-client and mirall. Tested owncloud and mirall and they work just fine without each other installed. mirall common holds config file (/etc/exclude.lst) and lang. Spec URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/mirall/mirall.spec SRPM URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/mirall/mirall-1.0.5-2.fc17.src.rpm the previous files are moved to: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/mirall/old/* asked uptream about the posiblity of moving /etc/exclude.lst to /etc/mirall/exclude.lst and adding versioning to the libs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825494] Review Request: cliquer - Find cliques in arbitrary weighted graphs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825494 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:57:50 --- Comment #10 from pcpa --- Package has been built for rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804190] Review Request: sympol - Symmetric polyhedra tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804190
--- Comment #3 from pcpa ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/pcpa/rpmbuild/sympol/licensecheck.txt
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD 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]: 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]: SHOUL
[Bug 804190] Review Request: sympol - Symmetric polyhedra tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804190 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from pcpa --- Does system "cdd" and "lrs" have any of the possible patches as listed in the pdf manual? from sympol-manual-0.1.pdf SymPol comes already bundled with patched versions of [cdd] and [lrs] to actually perform poly- hedral representation conversion. It also contains a copy of [PermLib] for computations with permutations. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840244] Review Request: Singular-surf - Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244 --- Comment #9 from pcpa --- (In reply to comment #8) > According to http://sagemath.org/packages/experimental/, Sage is using surf > version 1.1! Where did that version come from? Do you know? Looking at the spkg contents: $ cat surf-1.1/get_from_cvs echo "Enter a blank password" cvs -d:pserver:anonym...@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/surf login cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonym...@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/surf co -P surf But it looks seriously outdated: $ cat surf-1.1/SAGE.txt This is the 2006-02-12 CVS version of surf 1.1.0, obtained using cvs -d:pserver:anonym...@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/surf login cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonym...@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/surf co -P surf I'm using the cvs version since I couldn't get the download version from 2003 to compile (it's just too out of date). I then ran autogen.sh to create the configure script. -- I had to change the source code in two files to get surf to compile with GCC 4.0.2 on my system: * Deleted "IO::" in three places in surf/misc/IO.cc lines 207, 218, and 228 * Also in misc/IO.cc, changed line 121 to #ifdef XHAVE_LIBREADLINE so that chunk of code that uses readline isn't used. (It seems to be out of date. Since we're only using surf from singular, not having readline somewhere shouldn't be a big problem.) PACKAGE MAINTAINER: William Stein I actually did never check on actual upstream sagemath binaries. Maybe the singular examples using surf are not working in recent sagemath; I know it works in my Mandriva and current work in progress Fedora sagemath rpm package, using the package proposed here. Yes, BTW the sagemath version looks quite bogus... > The conflict with the existing surf package can cause problems. Can we > rename the binary in this package instead so they don't conflict? Again, I > realize that this makes us nonstandard and that we can't talk to upstream > about it because upstream mostly isn't there anymore, but that seems to be a > better path to me. Renaming the binary should be trivial, I was not much happy with needing to patch Singular scripts to match the new name, but should also not be a big deal. But then, the "surf" package, for the single webkit window appears to be quite outdated. > I noticed that the configure script reports that it cannot find tiffio.h, > even though that file is in libtiff-devel. Do you know what's going on > there? Looks like something bogus, and should be corrected, (or just ignore tiff support :-) dnl check for tiff library and header file (FreeBSD 3.0 has tiff34.so dnl instead of tiff.so and the header files are in /usr/local/lib/tiff34): AC_CHECK_LIB(tiff, main,, AC_CHECK_LIB(tiff34, main,, AC_MSG_ERROR([Sorry: can't find libtiff]))) AC_CHECK_HEADER(tiffio.h,, [AC_CHECK_HEADER(tiff34/tiffio.h,AC_DEFINE(TIFF_HEADER_34))], [AC_MSG_ERROR(["Sorry: cannot find header file tiffio.h"])] ) Thanks for spotting it. I will check if autoreconf does work, otherwise, could patch the configure script instead. Actually, the "surfex" java interface in Singular-surfex should be good for most if not all uses, just that the surf binary and the associated sagemath tutorial examples expect to use Singular's surf.lib that uses the surf binary. As noted in #c2 but link here for easier access, this is how it looks like in the sagemath tutorial http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/rawhide-sage-notebook4.png -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842481] Review Request: jhighlight - An embeddable pure Java syntax highlighting library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842481 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:30:35 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- jhighlight-1.0-3.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 845799] Review Request: rubygem-hashr - Simple Hash extension to make working with nested hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845799 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844033] Review Request: jdbm - A transactional persistence engine for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844033 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:28:58 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- jdbm-1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844769] Review Request: jbosscache-support - JBossCache support package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844769 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:28:00 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- jbosscache-support-1.6-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844479] Review Request: jgroups212 - A toolkit for reliable multicast communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844479 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:27:31 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- jgroups212-2.12.3-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848990] Review Request: libnetfilter_acct - A library providing interface to extended accounting infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848990 --- Comment #3 from Hushan Jia --- updated URLs: SPEC: http://hushan.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libnetfilter_acct.spec SRPM: http://hushan.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libnetfilter_acct-1.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:26:53 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- gshell-2.6.5-3.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 836014] Review Request: templates_parser - template library from AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:26:32 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- templates_parser-11.6.0-3.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 844299] Review Request: gmetrics - Groovy library that provides reports and metrics for Groovy code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844299 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:25:58 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- gmetrics-0.5-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846850] Review Request: rosa-launcher - application launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846850 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:25:10 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- rosa-launcher-0.34.12-5.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 844963] Review Request: cura-storage - CIM providers for storage management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844963 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:24:51 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- cura-storage-0.1-3.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 844737] Review Request: SLOF - Slimline Open Firmware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844737 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- SLOF-0-0.1.git20120217.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 844737] Review Request: SLOF - Slimline Open Firmware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844737 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:24:24 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- SLOF-0-0.1.git20120217.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841022] Review Request: i7z - CLI curses based monitoring tool for Intel Core i7 processors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841022 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- i7z-0.27.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845799] Review Request: rubygem-hashr - Simple Hash extension to make working with nested hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845799 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844314] Review Request: codenarc - Groovy library that provides static analysis features for Groovy code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844314 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:22:08 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- codenarc-0.17-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841022] Review Request: i7z - CLI curses based monitoring tool for Intel Core i7 processors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841022 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-17 21:21:19 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- i7z-0.27.1-1.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 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175
--- Comment #2 from pcpa ---
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.
[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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST 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.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on a
[Bug 848256] Review Request: python-taskw - Python bindings for your taskwarrior database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848256
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Hi,
why does it requires task ? ( since this is not used by the code )
I am not sure that the tests should be shipped with the module.
Other than that, the package seems quite good, so I will approve once we clear
the 2 noted issues :
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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
[-]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
= 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
[-]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (taskw-0.4.3.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from pcpa --- I noticed 3 files with ^M ending lines /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/mathml/ctop.xsl /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/mathml/mathml.xsl /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/mathml/pmathml.xsl but not a big deal to remove those. I could not find any place where the license is clearly specified as GPLv2+; should be the case when being a (contributed and accepted) gap package, thus following gap license. The other licenses are listed in the files, and one could look at licensecheck output to see the files with different license, as specified in the spec: # The package is all GPLv2+ except for some of the mathml files BTW, I have been using this package for a very long time, it is a build requires of my work in progress sagemath package, and only now noticed that it was not yet part of 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 840037] Review Request:rubygem-openshift-origin-node - Application container runtime for OpenShift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840037 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from Michael Scherer --- Tom, seems you forgot to set fedora-review flags 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 840037] Review Request:rubygem-openshift-origin-node - Application container runtime for OpenShift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840037 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Component|0x |Package Review Assignee|tcall...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845319] Review Request: openshift-origin-cartridge-cron-1.4 - Embedded cron support for OpenShift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845319 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||844011 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||845319 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||845314 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845314] Review Request: openshift-origin-cartridge-diy-0.1 - Provides openshift diy support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845314 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||844011 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844775] Review Request: python-django-dynamite, Dynamic models framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844775 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Summary|python-django-dynamite |Review Request: ||python-django-dynamite, ||Dynamic models framework -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847435] Review Request: perl-X11-Protocol-Other - Miscellaneous X11::Protocol helpers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847435
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
No issue seen in review ( almost the first time it happens to me )
So good to go, approved.
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/847435-perl-X11-Protocol-
Other/licensecheck.txt
[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.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
= 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
[-]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (X11-Protocol-Other-18.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build i
[Bug 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer ---
A few others notes :
- license is not shipped with the rpms
- there is a test suite shipped with connman, could it be run in %check
For the rest, this is good, so if you fix the 4 issues, I will approve the
package.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see
file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/849200-connman/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: 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]: Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
Note: Only applicable for EL-5
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= 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
[-]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defat
[Bug 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer ---
A few notes :
- %{_includedir}/connman/ is unowned
- Various scriptlets are wrong :
%systemd_preun apache-httpd.service
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840244] Review Request: Singular-surf - Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jerry James --- Since I made a hash of the original review (sorry, Mario!), the least I can do is see this one through. Things look pretty good in general. I understand that upstream is at least mostly dead, but Jussi's point in comment 3 is well taken. Shouldn't this package have a more general name? (That's why I called my version "surf-geometry".) According to http://sagemath.org/packages/experimental/, Sage is using surf version 1.1! Where did that version come from? Do you know? The conflict with the existing surf package can cause problems. Can we rename the binary in this package instead so they don't conflict? Again, I realize that this makes us nonstandard and that we can't talk to upstream about it because upstream mostly isn't there anymore, but that seems to be a better path to me. I noticed that the configure script reports that it cannot find tiffio.h, even though that file is in libtiff-devel. Do you know what's going on there? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer --- Yep, that's just 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 848208] Review Request: owncloud-csync - a file synchroniser utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208 --- Comment #29 from Kevin Kofler --- Sorry, wrong bug ID… Andreas, if you still want to get vanilla csync in, we can reopen bug #565902 as long as nobody else submits 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 848208] Review Request: owncloud-csync - a file synchroniser utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208 --- Comment #28 from Kevin Kofler --- Andreas, if you still want to get vanilla csync in, we can reopen bug #844960 as long as nobody else submits 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 848208] Review Request: owncloud-csync - a file synchroniser utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: csync - a |Review Request: |file synchroniser utility |owncloud-csync - a file ||synchroniser utility Alias|csync |owncloud-csync -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #27 from Joseph Marrero --- So I renamed the package to owncloud-csync, made the necessary changes in the spec to build correctly. NEW SRPM: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/owncloud-csync/owncloud-csync-0.50.8-6.fc17.src.rpm NEW SPEC: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/owncloud-csync/owncloud-csync.spec Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4401060 All old files are in: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/owncloud-csync/old/* Please let me know if this is OK. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806516] Review Request: python-django-annoying - Eliminate annoying things in the Django framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806516 --- Comment #10 from Michael Scherer --- Seems i forgot to explictely say that i approved the package :) ( so you can ask the git request ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848108] Review Request: stud - The Scalable TLS Unwrapping Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer --- Yup, I have read the patch. I think a patch for proper autodetection would be a good idea to send it upstream, but that's outside of the scope of the review.. Anyway, I guess the package is good to be approved now the remark have been addressed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848213] Review Request: cqrlog - An amateur radio contact logging program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848213
Clint Savage changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||her...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|her...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Clint Savage ---
Sorry it took me a few days to get to this review. Ran into some weird issues
with mock on my system.
Here's the report from fedora-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.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
there is such a file.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[ ]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/clints/rpmbuild/848213-cqrlog/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
[Bug 823959] Review Request: directory-project - Apache Directory Project Root pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823959 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- directory-project-27-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/directory-project-27-1.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 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 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Mohamed El Morabity --- 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 823959] Review Request: directory-project - Apache Directory Project Root pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823959 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- directory-project-27-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/directory-project-27-1.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 823959] Review Request: directory-project - Apache Directory Project Root pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823959 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845107] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective - OpenShift Origin plugin for mcollective service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107 --- Comment #13 from Adam Miller --- SPEC URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1-4.fc17.src.rpm - Removed unneeded ruby_sitelib - moved license and readme to original location - removed policycoreutils-python and selinux-policy-targeted as deps After speaking with the upstream author, it was agreed upon that these were not hard requirements. - changed stickshift-common dep to openshift-origin-common for F18 pkg naming This was a complete oversight on my part, apologies - added doc subpackage Was looking at the package manifest and the docs were overpowering so I moved them. On the topic of a test suite, there currently are not any unit tests listed under the rake task. I spoke with upstream and this is still being planned, currently the testing is done using cucumber in the upstream CI environment and requires a running system/environment to test against so it wouldn't be applicable to the package currently. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #8 from Lameire Alexis --- I've fixed it : SPEC : http://alexises.fedorapeople.org/adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts/1.033-3/adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts.spec SRPM : http://alexises.fedorapeople.org/adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts/1.033-3/adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts-1.033-3.fc17.src.rpm RPM : http://alexises.fedorapeople.org/adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts/1.033-3/adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts-1.033-3.fc17.noarch.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848421] Review Request: pgRouting - Provides routing functionality to PostGIS/PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848421 --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich --- Thank you Damian! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847953] Review Request: python-django-countries - Provides a country field for Django models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847953
Matthias Runge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge ---
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.
[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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[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
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)" For detailed output of licensecheck
see file: /home/mrunge/review/847953-python-django-
countries/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD 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]: 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.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (django-co
[Bug 848208] Review Request: csync - a file synchroniser utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208 --- Comment #26 from Joseph Marrero --- the upstream csync needs log4c-devel, this dependency is not met by fedora right now. I will not package csync upstream until its needed by mirall, so Andreas can pick it up If he wants. I will continue to package the csync dav branch made by Klass Freitag . I will rename it owncloud-csync. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build fails for f17 and f18:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4400046
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4400294
From build.log:
> configure: error: Package requirements (glib-2.0 >= 2.25.6
> gtk+-3.0 >= 3.0.0
> pygobject-3.0 >= 3.0) were not met:
> No package 'pygobject-3.0' found
You have to replace all occurences of pygobject2 with pygobject3 in
BuildRequires and Requires. Moreover, you can drop the following from
BuildRequires:
gettext: needed by intltool
python2-devel: obsolete, has to be python3-devel actually, but it is not needed
because the Python build stack (setup.py etc.) is not used here, the package
uses autotools
glib2-devel: needed by Gtk anyway, the v2 is obsolete for the newest sources
There are a lot of entries in Requires. You should build your package without
them and check what is picked up automatically. Then add those which are not
found by rpm.
The initial cleaning of %{buildroot} in the %install section and the %defattr
line in %files are obsolete. Please drop them unless you would want to provide
your package for EPEL 5 (which is impossible due to unresolvable dependencies).
Some files are installed in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/, you have to add the
following scripts to update the icon cache:
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null
gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
fi
%posttrans
gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
To install the desktop file correctly, you have to add desktop-file-utils to
BuildRequires.
And last but not least: Please don't forget to log your changes in the
Changelog!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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] Review Request: pgRouting - Provides routing functionality to PostGIS/PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848421
Damian Wrobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Damian Wrobel ---
I'll take this one.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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.
Note: Unversioned so-files in non-devel package (fix or
explain):pgRouting-1.05-1.fc17.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/pgsql/librouting.so
pgRouting-1.05-1.fc17.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/pgsql/librouting_dd.so
According to [1] it's acceptable as it's a plugin for a specific application.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
Seems to be false positive as both BSL and GPLv2+ are installed.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSL (v1.0)", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed
output of licensecheck see file:
/home/dw/projects/fedpkg/test/848421-pgRouting/licensecheck.txt
"*No copyright* UNKNOWN" comes from the core/src/edge_visitors.hpp file.
But it's the same file as it was in the previous approved version of the
package.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American Engli
[Bug 830421] Review Request: python-django-pylibmc - Django cache backend using pylibmc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830421 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-17 15:09:37 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge --- ok, it's built and imported. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829809] Review Request: python-svg - Python wrapper for svg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829809 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Best idea I've got. Flagging FE-LEGAL. See #3, is this admissible? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830418] Review Request: python-django-avatar - A reusable django application for handling user avatars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830418 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge --- ping? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829809] Review Request: python-svg - Python wrapper for svg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829809 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge --- Hmm, how to proceed? Ask legal? Other than that: If upstream is not that responsive, are you still intending to package 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 840171] Review Request: python-django-recaptcha-works - Django module for integrate the reCaptcha service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge --- Ok, I'm a little astonished, this review is assigned to me Some drive by comments: - obsoletes and latest version don't fit together: you're obsoleting your latest version. There are two mistakes: Your version should read 0.3.4-3, AND your packaged version should be 0.3.4-3, too. It's not a problem, to start with a release -3. - you should correct the changelog, too. - do you have a small test application? This software is basically from 2010, django-1.4.1 is a major upgrade and introduces some incompatible changes to prior versions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823959] Review Request: directory-project - Apache Directory Project Root pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823959 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823959] Review Request: directory-project - Apache Directory Project Root pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823959 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: directory-project Short Description: Apache Directory Project Root pom 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 848664] Review Request: python-django-profile - Django pluggable user profile zone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848664
Matthias Runge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge ---
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.
[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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[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
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST 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.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[!]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
Note: Multiple Release tags found
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (django-prof
[Bug 823962] Review Request: apacheds-shared - Shared APIs of Apache Directory Project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823962 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #73 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to comment #72) > Sorry, I read this comment first today, because i hat problems with my email > account. There is no longer access to the version > speed-dreams-2.1.0-6.trunk_r4810.fc17 possible in Bohdi because I deleted > all previous versions. There are now only the versions > speed-dreams-2.1.0-9.trunk_r4810.fc17 and > speed-dreams-2.1.0-9.trunk_r4810.fc17 available. As long as no new issues have been introduced and the noarch for the sub package issue is fixed, this version should be fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823959] Review Request: directory-project - Apache Directory Project Root pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823959
Matt Spaulding changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Matt Spaulding ---
RPMLint Output:
directory-project.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
directory-project-27-src-svn.tar.gz
/home/mspaulding/rpmbuild/SPECS/directory-project.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
directory-project-27-src-svn.tar.gz
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[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
[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)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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. [1]
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[2]
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (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. [1]
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [1]
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [3]
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %defin
[Bug 823967] Review Request: apacheds - Apache Directory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823967 --- Comment #3 from Matt Spaulding --- Hi Gil, I want to review this package, but realized that there are some dependencies that should be reviewed first. Once those have gotten approved I'll start the review on this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Simerda --- From rpmlint: > connman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Only a systemd unit. Is this a problem in rpmlint?t > connman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary connmand Yeah. They didn't care to provide one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #72 from MartinKG --- Sorry, I read this comment first today, because i hat problems with my email account. There is no longer access to the version speed-dreams-2.1.0-6.trunk_r4810.fc17 possible in Bohdi because I deleted all previous versions. There are now only the versions speed-dreams-2.1.0-9.trunk_r4810.fc17 and speed-dreams-2.1.0-9.trunk_r4810.fc17 available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849200] New: Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 Bug ID: 849200 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: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: psime...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/connman.spec SRPM URL: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/connman-1.5-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The ConnMan project provides a daemon for managing internet connections within embedded devices running the Linux operating system. The Connection Manager is designed to be slim and to use as few resources as possible, so it can be easily integrated. Fedora Account System Username: pavlix I want to add this package to Fedora for testing it and experimenting with it. It is an interesting peace of software. And, after all, we are open source and we like alternatives :). We have all these Unities, Cinnamons and Mates already. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806516] Review Request: python-django-annoying - Eliminate annoying things in the Django framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806516
--- Comment #9 from Praveen Kumar ---
>[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
> Note: Source0 (django-annoying-0.7.6.20120609hga0de8b.tar.xz)
This Fixed
>[!]: Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
For me it's not showing any installation error.
[daredevil@pkumar222 SPECS]$ sudo rpm -ivh
../RPMS/noarch/python-django-annoying-0.7.6-3.20120609hga0de8b.fc17.noarch.rpm
[sudo] password for daredevil:
Preparing...### [100%]
1:python-django-annoying ### [100%]
[daredevil@pkumar222 SPECS]$ rpmlint -i python-django-annoying
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Updated SPEC :
http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/annoying/python-django-annoying.spec
SRPM :
http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/annoying/python-django-annoying-0.7.6-3.20120609hga0de8b.fc17.src.rpm
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4398855
I didn't bump the revision, if needed will do.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845107] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective - OpenShift Origin plugin for mcollective service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tdaw...@redhat.com Depends On||839064 --- Comment #12 from Troy Dawson --- One little thing. Looks like you missed changing rubygem(stickshift-common) to rubygem(openshift-origin-common) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||845107 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848108] Review Request: stud - The Scalable TLS Unwrapping Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108 --- Comment #5 from Ryan O'Hara --- (In reply to comment #2) > - the patch should be commented and sent upstream The patch is distribution specific. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848108] Review Request: stud - The Scalable TLS Unwrapping Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848108 --- Comment #4 from Ryan O'Hara --- I've made the following changes to the spec file: - Completely remove te %clean section. - Replace post, preun, and postun scriptlets with macros. - Remove %defattr(-,root,root,-). - Added comment about how to get snapshot tarball of master branch. from github. You can find the updated spec file here: http://rohara.fedorapeople.org/stud/stud.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 847457] Review Request: rubygem-transaction-simple - Simple object transaction support for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847457 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-transaction-simple-1.4.0.2-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 823967] Review Request: apacheds - Apache Directory Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823967 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848958] Review Request : gmchess - Chinese Chess Game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848958 --- Comment #3 from Pierre-Yves Luyten --- Spec : http://py.luyten.fr/Publique/Fedora/gmchess/gmchess.spec Srpm : http://py.luyten.fr/Publique/Fedora/gmchess/gmchess-0.29.6-0.1.fc17.src.rpm I did add one EOL after postun to reduce issues to below warning gmchess.x86_64: W: percent-in-%postun -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #14 from Troy Dawson --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-broker.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-9.fc19.src.rpm - ghost permissions - changed to 644 -- originally they were 666, in the original spec file. rpmlint didn't like that, and neither did I becaue I didn't want everyone writting to them. Since I was only thinking of "world" I only changed the one number. But you are right, there is no reason to have it 664 instead of 644. - apache owning /log /run /tmp - done -- I agree with you. I think I was a little over zelous in removing the apache permissions. But it looked so much cleaner without them. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784175] Review Request: SuperLU - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175 --- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan --- Yes. It would be good if someone can 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 784175] Review Request: SuperLU - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- Chitlesh, this review is stalled. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Reviewer_not_responding, please respond within the next week. Shakthi, are you still ready to move forward 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 842172] Review Request: gobby05 - Development version of gobby 0.5, a collaborative editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842172 Máirín Duffy changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||849182 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825489] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825489 --- Comment #11 from Jerry James --- Greg, have you seen this page? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group What can you point out to a potential sponsor? Do you have other package submissions? Have you done any informal reviews? Do you comaintain any 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 750139] Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750139 --- Comment #15 from Jerry James --- Brendan, are you out there? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #13 from Michael Scherer ---
So besides the previous comments ( and they can be fixed later ), there is just
various missing deps, like mod_passenger. So once they are in, I will approve
the package.
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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
[-]: 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
= 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see a
[Bug 849175] New: Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 Bug ID: 849175 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: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/GAPDoc/GAPDoc.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/GAPDoc/GAPDoc-1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Tools and an XML format for writing GAP documentation. Fedora Account System Username: jjames This is not the latest version of GAPDoc, but it is the latest version that works with GAP 4.4.12, the version currently supported in Fedora. The two packages, GAP and GAPDoc, will have to be updated to their latest versions together, as they are mutually dependent in those versions. That is, GAPDoc 1.3 should be considered a bootstrap package, that will enable updating to GAP 4.5.x, that will in turn enable updating to GAPDoc 1.5.1. -- 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 839395] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-controller - Rails engine for the OpenShift Broker API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839395
--- Comment #16 from Brenton Leanhardt ---
Regarding %patch1, that was another mistake. I had incorrectly ported a change
that was recommended in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby. There
the following is used in prep:
gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec
I believe that command creates whitespace differences that causes gemspec
patches to fail (if they were was created against the original source). That
meant if I needed to patch the gemspec I had to patch it after that command.
If that line isn't absolutely necessary I would like to avoid it. Currently I
believe (fixed) prep section is much more readable:
gem unpack %{SOURCE0}
%setup -q -D -T -n %{gem_name}-%{version}
%patch0 -p1
%patch1 -p1
Right now there are unfortunately no real unit tests for this package (even
though they exist in test/unit). They are all integration style tests that
have external dependencies.
I would like to create -doc subpackages for all OpenShift libraries once the
dust settles a little and the packagers involved have time to standardize on
decisions like this.
Here are the updated artifacts:
* Fri Aug 17 2012 Brenton Leanhardt - 0.14.15-7
- Fixed prep and build sections
- Removed ruby-devel BuildRequire
- Removed useless CONFIGURE_ARGS variable
- Proper usage of gem_libdir and gem_instdir in install section
- Correctly incorrect usage of doc directive and fixed incorrect gem_libdir
exclusion
SRPM:
http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-openshift-origin-controller/201208170939/rubygem-openshift-origin-controller-0.14.15-7.fc18.src.rpm
Spec:
http://brenton.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/rubygem-openshift-origin-controller/201208170939/rubygem-openshift-origin-controller.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 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #71 from Fedora Update System --- speed-dreams-2.1.0-9.trunk_r4810.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/speed-dreams-2.1.0-9.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 848208] Review Request: csync - a file synchroniser utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208 --- Comment #25 from Joseph Marrero --- I think skiping this package is non sense, a lot of people wants the stock csync too right? So I will package csync uptream if that is ok by Andreas since the spec is almost the same for both. And try and set csync owncloud to ocsync or owncloud-csync then for mirall set it for look for owncloud-csync or bundle it with Mirall. If Klass is the uptream for Mirall and his version of Csync I guess the right call is to use his code for mirall and owncloud-csync until a version of mirall that uses csync. When Mirall uses the uptream csync as dep then csync-owncloud will not be neaded any more but we can't tell if this will ever happen. Its hard to say it will, csync-owncloud has been under constant changes as per owncloud and mirall all this are in constant development. By maintaining uptream csync, owncloud-csync and mirall I can work for this to happen in a timely maner. Now the question is if @Adreas Schneider is ok having me maintaining his csync or if he wants to maintain the fedora package for uptream csync. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
