[Bug 851747] New: Review Request: mediawiki-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851747 Bug ID: 851747 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: mediawiki-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/mediawiki-intersection/mediawiki-intersection.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/mediawiki-intersection/mediawiki-intersection-37906-1.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: puiterwijk Description: Outputs a bulleted list of most recent items residing in a category, or an intersection of several categories. DynamicPageList is another name for this extension. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851746] New: Review Request: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746
Bug ID: 851746
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: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X
clipboard with bit.ly
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/bitlyclip.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/bitlyclip-0.2.1-3.fc17.src.rpm
Description: bitlyclip is just a script that:
- Takes a url in your clipboard.
- Shortens it with the bit.ly url shortening services.
- Puts the new url back in your clipboard.
It makes a nice 'hotkey' in whatever window manager you're using.
Fedora Account System Username: ralph
rpmlint output
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS}/bitlyclip*
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) urls -> curls, purls, hurls
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ly -> l, y, lye
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US url -> URL, curl, purl
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ly -> l, y, lye
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotkey -> hokey, hockey,
hot key
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
koji - f18 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4421405
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851745] New: Review Request: python-bitlyapi - A thin python wrapper for the bit.ly REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745
Bug ID: 851745
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Summary: Review Request: python-bitlyapi - A thin python
wrapper for the bit.ly REST API
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-bitlyapi
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-bitlyapi-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: This is a thin Python wrapper for the bit.ly API. Basic usage
looks like this::
>>> import bitlyapi
>>> b = bitlyapi.BitLy(api_user, api_key)
>>> res = b.shorten(longUrl='http://www.google.com/')
>>> print res['url']
'http://bit.ly/6Hwstb'
>>> print res['long_url']
'http://www.google.com/'
Fedora Account System Username: ralph
rpmlint output:
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS}/python-bitlyapi*
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ly -> l, y, lye
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ly -> l, y, lye
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US BitLy -> Bitty,
Billy, Fitly
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape,
apt
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US longUrl ->
longueur, furlong
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google,
goggle, googly
python-bitlyapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US url -> URL, curl,
purl
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
koji - f18 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4421401
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828501] Review Request: drupal6-custom_breadcrumbs - Custom Breadcrumbs Module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828501 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 23:03:52 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- drupal6-custom_breadcrumbs-2.0.rc1-3.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 845805] Review Request: rubygem-ttfunk - Font Metrics Parser for Prawn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828458] Review Request: drupal6-menu_block - Menu block module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828458 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 23:03:06 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- drupal6-menu_block-2.4-3.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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 23:02:26 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828809] Review Request: drupal6-emfield - Embedded Media Field module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828809 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 23:00:44 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- drupal6-emfield-2.5-3.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 822929] Review Request: activemq-protobuf - ActiveMQ Protocol Buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822929 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 22:59:59 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- activemq-protobuf-1.1-2.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 847684] Review Request: mate-notification-daemon - Notification daemon for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847684 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 22:58:36 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- mate-notification-daemon-1.4.0-2.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 828429] Review Request: drupal6-context - Context Module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828429 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 22:57:00 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- drupal6-context-3.0-3.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 828800] Review Request: drupal6-eazylaunch - Eazy Launch Module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828800 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 22:56:46 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- drupal6-eazylaunch-1.4-3.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 845805] Review Request: rubygem-ttfunk - Font Metrics Parser for Prawn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 22:56:01 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843695] Review Request: gecode - Generic constraint development environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843695 Julian C. Dunn changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Julian C. Dunn --- Package Change Request == Package Name: gecode New Branches: f16 Owners: jdunn InitialCC: Would like to support Fedora 16 as well as some users need 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 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 --- Comment #21 from Dan Mashal --- >And for installing fedora 18, I am able to do a upgrade from f17, and I would > >expect someone packaging a complete DE to do the same. Done it already a few times. It is not even in Alpha yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825557] Review Request: mingw-clucene - CLucene 2.3.3.4 built for MinGW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557 --- Comment #11 from Erik van Pienbroek --- (In reply to comment #10) > Not the best forum for this query, I know, but Eric, why have you not asked > to be a sponsor? You certainly appear to meet the requirements (maintain > three packages, been a packager for six months, done five good package > reviews). https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ I've been considering to become a sponsor for some time already, but as my spare time is too limited due to my fulltime dayjob (which isn't directly Fedora related) I decided not to apply for becoming a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829038] Review Request: drupal6-freelinking - Freelinking module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Troy Dawson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tdaw...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson ---
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.
[S]: 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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[X]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[X]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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: Source2 (LICENSE.txt) Source0 (freelinking-6.x-3.2.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and s
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030
Troy Dawson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tdaw...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson ---
Formal 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.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package 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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST 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.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[X]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[X]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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: Source2 (LICENSE.txt) Source0 (flag-6.x-1.3.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: S
[Bug 851734] New: Review Request: perl-Regexp-Grammars - Add grammatical parsing features to perl regular expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851734 Bug ID: 851734 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Regexp-Grammars - Add grammatical parsing features to perl regular expressions Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: wf...@virginia.edu Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Regexp-Grammars.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This module adds a small number of new regular expressions constructs that can be used to implement complete recursive-descent parsing. These constructs use the grammar patterns that were added to perl's regular expressions in perl 5.10. Fedora Account System Username: wfp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- katello-agent-1.1.2-1.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 847684] Review Request: mate-notification-daemon - Notification daemon for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847684 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- mate-notification-daemon-1.4.0-2.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 843695] Review Request: gecode - Generic constraint development environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843695 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- gecode-3.7.3-3.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 850469] Review Request: rubygem-Ascii85 - Methods to encode/decode Adobe's binary-to-text encoding of the same name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850469 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-Ascii85-1.0.1-5.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 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- katello-agent-1.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/katello-agent-1.1.2-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-08-24 16:56:52 --- Comment #32 from Steven Dake --- Juan, This package review has completed. Please do not change around the flags on completed review requests. As for your request to be added to the package database for this package, it appears only the owner can allow new users into the package. I am a provenpackager and don't see a mechanism to force the addition of your user to the package. I'd suggest mailing fedora devel for more guidance. Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 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 848353] Review Request: python-pthreading - Re-implement threading.Lock, RLock and Condition with libpthread
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848353 Dan Kenigsberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan...@cs.technion.ac.il Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851721] Review Request: perl-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC - Communicate with Nessus scanner(v4.2+) via XMLRPC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851721 Olivier Bilodeau changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848353] Review Request: python-pthreading - Re-implement threading.Lock, RLock and Condition with libpthread
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848353 --- Comment #10 from Dan Kenigsberg --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pthreading Short Description: Re-implement threading.Lock, RLock and Condition with libpthread Owners: danken fsimonce Branches: f17 f18 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851721] New: Review Request: perl-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC - Communicate with Nessus scanner(v4.2+) via XMLRPC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851721 Bug ID: 851721 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC - Communicate with Nessus scanner(v4.2+) via XMLRPC Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: oliv...@bottomlesspit.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/inverse-inc/perl-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC.spec/raw/master/perl-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/inverse-inc/perl-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC.spec/raw/master/perl-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC-0.30-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This is Perl interface for communication with Nessus scanner over XMLRPC. You can start, stop, pause and resume scan. Watch progress and status of scan, download report, etc. Fedora Account System Username: obilodeau This is my first package and I need a sponsor. We've done several perl packages in our own repo in the PacketFence project[1] but now I'm trying to improve and upstream that here so that everyone in the greater ecosystem will benefit. This is the first of probably many perl packages. I'm also interested in updating the asciidoc package and I started working on that and got some feedback there also. Successful koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4390697 [1]: http://www.packetfence.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 784175] Review Request: SuperLU - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James ---
There are a few things to fix, all of them minor, and some of them optional.
1) I think the two %doc lines should be switched. The README file contains
the license text, so it should be in the main package. The material in DOC
is suitable for a developer of the library, rather than a user, so it
should be in the -devel package.
2) Unless you plan to use the same spec file for EPEL5, remove
"rm -rf %{buildroot}" from %install, and %defattr from both %files
sections.
3) Ask upstream to avoid calling exit() in a library.
4) Add "chmod a-x SRC/qselect.c" to %prep to get rid of the
spurious-executable-perm warning from rpmlint.
5) Remove "-latlas" from the last sed expression in %prep. The f77blas
library is already linked against libatlas. Removing explicit mention of
it from the link line gets rid of the unused-direct-shlib-dependency
warning from rpmlint.
6) Add comments about the upstream status of the patches (optional). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
7) Change the patch names to "%{name}-add-fpic.patch", etc. That hushes up
one of the complaints in the SHOULD section below (optional).
8) Add a %check script to run the tests in TESTING (optional).
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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files devel section. This is OK if
packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (with incorrect FSF address)" For detailed output of licensecheck
see file: /home/jamesjer/784175-SuperLU/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
[Bug 784175] Review Request: SuperLU - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|chitl...@gmail.com |loganje...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #8 from Jerry James --- Chitlesh has not responded here, nor to private email. I will take over the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851701] Review Request: python-audioread - Multi-library, cross-platform audio decoding in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851701 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4420588 $ rpmlint -i -v * python-audioread.src: I: checking python-audioread.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> back ends, back-ends, backhands The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aifc -> naif The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/audioread/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-audioread.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/audioread/audioread-0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) python-audioread.noarch: I: checking python-audioread.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends -> back ends, back-ends, backhands The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aifc -> naif The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-audioread.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/audioread/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-audioread.spec: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/audioread/audioread-0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Ignoreable spelling errors, no real issues so far. Taking this for a full 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 771944] Review Request: pykka - Python library that provides concurrency using actor model
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771944
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Dieter ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is superfluous here, because there's no C code
> included.
>
> If you don't want to provide it for EPEL 5, drop BuildRoot, the initial
> cleaning of %{buildroot} in %install, the %clean section and the %defattr
> line from %files.
Mario, thanks for the review. I'll push out a new release fixing the items
mentioned above, probably tomorrow.
Stein, I will make sure the new release is based on the latest version and
update the package website url.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771944] Review Request: pykka - Python library that provides concurrency using actor model
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771944 --- Comment #5 from Stein Magnus Jodal --- (In reply to comment #4) > pykka.src: I: checking-url http://jodal.github.com/pykka/ (timeout 10 > seconds) The website was moved to http://pykka.readthedocs.org/ some time ago. > pykka.src: I: checking-url http://github.com/jodal/pykka/tarball/v0.13 > (timeout 10 seconds) v0.15 has been released, so you may consider updating the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848211] Review Request: mirall - owncloud desktop client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848211 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 15:23:06 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- owncloud-csync-0.50.8-9.fc17, mirall-1.0.5-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848208] Review Request: owncloud-csync - a file synchroniser utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 15:22:59 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System --- owncloud-csync-0.50.8-9.fc17, mirall-1.0.5-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849455] Review Request: geary - A lightweight email program designed around conversations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849455 --- Comment #6 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 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 --- Comment #6 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 791233] Review Request: ovirt-engine-cli - Command line interface for oVirt platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791233 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- No new branches requested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 --- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla --- No new branches requested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806117] Review Request: Oplop - Generate account passwords based on account nicknames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806117 --- Comment #4 from Abdel Gadiel Martínez Lassonde --- I have updated the package with the suggestions you did. Here is the spec and src.rpm files link: http://potty.fedorapeople.org/Oplop/1.6-1/Oplop-1.6-1.fc17.1.src.rpm http://potty.fedorapeople.org/Oplop/1.6-1/Oplop.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 851641] Review Request: lprof - An open source color profiler that creates ICC compliant profiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851641 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Dyroff --- Created attachment 606944 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=606944&action=edit koji output I can't reach the koji webinteface(page loads forever). I decided to attach the console output instead. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771944] Review Request: pykka - Python library that provides concurrency using actor model
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771944
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi,
>
> I'm the upstream author of Pykka.
>
> I would just like to mention that Gevent is an optional dependency only
> needed if you use the "pykka.gevent" package. Pykka is useful without Gevent.
>
Yes, but it is safe to have it in BuildRequires and require it at runtime.
Another way would be to have to define a subpackage named pykka-gevent, which
requires pykka and python-gevent. But I think don't let us make it more
complicated as it's worth. We speak about requirements of some kilobytes,
that's why I wouldn't think about such a way.
Scratch build for Rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4420502
$ rpmlint -i -v *
pykka.src: I: checking
pykka.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gevent -> event, g event,
gent
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutine -> co routine,
co-routine, routine
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US greenlet -> green let,
green-let, greenbelt
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libevent -> lib event,
lib-event, enlivenment
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.src: I: checking-url http://jodal.github.com/pykka/ (timeout 10 seconds)
pykka.src: I: checking-url http://github.com/jodal/pykka/tarball/v0.13 (timeout
10 seconds)
pykka.noarch: I: checking
pykka.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gevent -> event, g event,
gent
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutine -> co routine,
co-routine, routine
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US greenlet -> green let,
green-let, greenbelt
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libevent -> lib event,
lib-event, enlivenment
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doesn -> does, does n
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
pykka.noarch: I: checking-url http://jodal.github.com/pykka/ (timeout 10
seconds)
pykka.spec: I: checking-url http://github.com/jodal/pykka/tarball/v0.13
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
A few spelling errors which could be safely ignored.
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is superfluous here, because there's no C code
included.
If you don't want to provide it for EPEL 5, drop BuildRoot, the initial
cleaning of %{buildroot} in %install, the %clean section and the %defattr line
from %files.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
ASL 2.0
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
81a4fe294489e53269509a135d856a669bb9e8374815d96faae5e8b797bb3941
v0.13.orig
81a4fe294489e53269509a135d856a669bb9e8374815d96faae5e8b797bb3941 v0.13
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one prima
[Bug 845057] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive - Only use Sub::Exporter if you need it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057 --- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth --- Petr, have you any comments on this package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815001] Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815001 --- Comment #8 from Shawn Starr --- This is on hold, targeting Fedora 19 now. Upstream is aware, working with them to sort out issues mentioned in bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849455] Review Request: geary - A lightweight email program designed around conversations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849455 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny --- Many thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: geary Short Description: A lightweight email program designed around conversations Owners: thm Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791233] Review Request: ovirt-engine-cli - Command line interface for oVirt platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791233 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Juan Hernández --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ovirt-engine-cli Owners: oschreib jhernand We need to update these package in order to fix bug 851674 and CVE-2012-3533, but my colleage Ofer Schreiber will not be available for the next few weeks, so he can't grant me commit permissions via the package database pages. Can you grant me those permissions somehow? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=77 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #30 from Juan Hernández --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ovirt-engine-sdk Owners: oschreib jhernand We need to update these package in order to fix bug 851674 and CVE-2012-3533, but my colleage Ofer Schreiber will not be available for the next few weeks, so he can't grant me commit permissions via the package database pages. Can you grant me those permissions somehow? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851701] Review Request: python-audioread - Multi-library, cross-platform audio decoding in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851701 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||851702 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851702] Review Request: python-acoustid - Python bindings for Chromaprint acoustic fingerprinting and the Acoustid API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||851701 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851695] Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851695 --- Comment #2 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- It's an old app which used to be Gnome-centric but has moved to cross-platform distribution lately. It still requires GTK2 and other older libraries. Specifically the application is 'Xiphos' (http://xiphos.org). Until the past few months there was no ability to move off of GTK2 as there was no GTK3 build of webkitgtk available on Windows. I just cobbled together our first GTK3 build for Windows yesterday and it is fraught with bugs (although it works fine built against GTK3 on Linux). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851702] New: Review Request: python-acoustid - Python bindings for Chromaprint acoustic fingerprinting and the Acoustid API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 Bug ID: 851702 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: python-acoustid - Python bindings for Chromaprint acoustic fingerprinting and the Acoustid API Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: terje...@phys.ntnu.no Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-acoustid/python-acoustid.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-acoustid/python-acoustid-0.7-1.fc16.src.rpm description: Chromaprint and its associated Acoustid Web service make up a high-quality, open-source acoustic fingerprinting system. This package provides Python bindings for both the fingerprinting algorithm library, which is written in C but portable, and the Web service, which provides fingerprint lookups. fas: terjeros -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851695] Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851695 --- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham --- Out of curiosity, what would you be intending to package for windows that would still use deprecated libraries like libbonobo and gnome-vfs2? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851701] New: Review Request: python-audioread - Multi-library, cross-platform audio decoding in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851701 Bug ID: 851701 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: python-audioread - Multi-library, cross-platform audio decoding in Python Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: terje...@phys.ntnu.no Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-audioread/python-audioread.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-audioread/python-audioread-0.6-1.fc16.src.rpm description: Decode audio files using whichever backend is available. Among currently supports backends are o Gstreamer via gstreamer-python o The standard library wave and aifc modules (for WAV and AIFF files) fas: terjeros -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851695] Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851695 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||greg.helli...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc), ||851681 (mingw-orbit2), ||851678 (mingw-popt) Alias||mingw-libbonobo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851681] Review Request: mingw-orbit2 - MinGW Windows ORBit2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851681 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||851695 (mingw-libbonobo) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851678] Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851678 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||851695 (mingw-libbonobo) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851695] New: Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851695 Bug ID: 851695 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-libbonobo - Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/libbonobo/mingw-libbonobo.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/libbonobo/mingw-libbonobo-2.32.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows port of the Bonobo Component System for the GNOME 2.x Desktop Platform. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings I have built this along with its dependent libraries over on OBS at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-libbonobo&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850945] Review Request: mingw-gnome-mime-data - MinGW build of Gnome's MIME Data package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850945 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||851692 (mingw-gnome-vfs2) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851692] Review Request: mingw-gnome-vfs2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Virtual File System Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851692 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||greg.helli...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc), ||850945 ||(mingw-gnomemimedata) Alias||mingw-gnome-vfs2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850945] Review Request: mingw-gnome-mime-data - MinGW build of Gnome's MIME Data package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850945 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||mingw-gnomemimedata -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851692] New: Review Request: mingw-gnome-vfs2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Virtual File System Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851692 Bug ID: 851692 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-gnome-vfs2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Virtual File System Libraries Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/gnome-vfs2/mingw-gnome-vfs2.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/gnome-vfs2/mingw-gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Virtual File System Libraries. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings I have built this along with its dependent libraries over on OBS at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-gnome-vfs2&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851689] Review Request: mingw-libgsf - Library for reading and writing structured files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851689 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||greg.helli...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc) Alias||mingw-libgsf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851689] New: Review Request: mingw-libgsf - Library for reading and writing structured files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851689 Bug ID: 851689 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-libgsf - Library for reading and writing structured files Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/libgsf/mingw-libgsf.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/libgsf/mingw-libgsf-1.14.23-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows port of the library for reading and writing structured files. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings I have built this and other dependent libraries over on OBS at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-gsf&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851683] Review Request: mingw-gconf2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Configuration Database System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851683 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851681] Review Request: mingw-orbit2 - MinGW Windows ORBit2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851681 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851678] Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851678 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851677] Review Request: mingw-dbus-glib - D-Bus Message Bus System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851677 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851677] Review Request: mingw-dbus-glib - D-Bus Message Bus System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851677 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||851683 (mingw-gconf2) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851683] Review Request: mingw-gconf2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Configuration Database System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851683 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||greg.helli...@gmail.com Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc), ||851677 (mingw-dbus-glib) Alias||mingw-gconf2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851683] New: Review Request: mingw-gconf2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Configuration Database System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851683 Bug ID: 851683 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-gconf2 - MinGW Windows port of the GNOME 2.x Desktop Configuration Database System Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/gconf2/mingw-gconf2.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/gconf2/mingw-gconf2-3.2.5-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows port of GConf, the GNOME configuration database. It is used by the GNOME 2.x Desktop platform. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings I have built this and other dependent libraries over on OBS at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-gconf2&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||851681 (mingw-orbit2) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851681] Review Request: mingw-orbit2 - MinGW Windows ORBit2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851681 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||greg.helli...@gmail.com Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc), ||851680 (mingw-libidl) Alias||mingw-orbit2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851681] New: Review Request: mingw-orbit2 - MinGW Windows ORBit2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851681 Bug ID: 851681 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-orbit2 - MinGW Windows ORBit2 library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/orbit2/mingw-orbit2.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/orbit2/mingw-orbit2-2.14.19-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows ORBit2 library. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings I have built this and its dependent libraries over on OBS at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-orbit2&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||greg.helli...@gmail.com Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc) Alias||mingw-libidl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851680] New: Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 Bug ID: 851680 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library. Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/libidl/mingw-libidl.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/libidl/mingw-libIDL-0.8.14-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings I have also built this and other dependent libraries on OBS at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-libidl&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851677] Review Request: mingw-dbus-glib - D-Bus Message Bus System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851677 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||mingw-dbus-glib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851678] Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851678 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||mingw-popt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851678] Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851678 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org, ||greg.helli...@gmail.com Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc), ||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851678] New: Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851678 Bug ID: 851678 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-popt - C library for parsing command line parameters Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/popt/mingw-popt.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/popt/mingw-popt-1.10.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Popt is a C library for parsing command line parameters. Popt was heavily influenced by the getopt() and getopt_long() functions, but it improves on them by allowing more powerful argument expansion. Popt can parse arbitrary argv[] style arrays and automatically set variables based on command line arguments. Popt allows command line arguments to be aliased via configuration files and includes utility functions for parsing arbitrary strings into argv[] arrays using shell-like rules. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings I have built this and other dependent libraries on OBS at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-popt&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851677] Review Request: mingw-dbus-glib - D-Bus Message Bus System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851677 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org Depends On||454410 (mingw32-gcc) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851677] New: Review Request: mingw-dbus-glib - D-Bus Message Bus System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851677 Bug ID: 851677 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-dbus-glib - D-Bus Message Bus System Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/dbus-glib/mingw-dbus-glib.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.thehellings.com/mingw32/dbus-glib/mingw-dbus-glib-0.100-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: D-Bus is a message bus system, a simple way for applications to talk to one another. D-Bus supplies both a system daemon and a per-user-login-session daemon. Also, the message bus is built on top of a general one-to-one message passing framework, which can be used by any two apps to communicate directly (without going through the message bus daemon). Fedora Account System Username:greghellings Also, I have built this and other dependent packages over on the OBS against Fedora 17. This package is at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mingw-dbus-glib&project=home%3Agreg_hellings%3Afedora-mingw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279 --- Comment #15 from Andy Grimm --- next revision: SPEC: http://arg.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eucalyptus/3.1.0-17/eucalyptus.spec SRPM: http://arg.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eucalyptus/3.1.0-17/eucalyptus-3.1.0-17.fc18.src.rpm This one built against rawhide in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4420182 I realized after I submitted it that I still have to finish fixing the apache configs; they're in a broken state at the moment. I'd still like to have comments about other things in the spec or layouts of the resulting packages that might not be acceptable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847643] Review Request: libmateweather - Libraries to allow MATE Desktop to display weather information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847643
--- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter ---
Some initial comments:
1. SHOULD drop -libs subpkg, it's already named lib*, and it's contents
have little/no chance to induce multilib conflicts
2. MUST move
%{python_sitearch}/mateweather/
to main pkg, fairly certain these are for runtime use (not -devel purposes)
3. per comment #4, MUST add mateconf schema scriptlets
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849455] Review Request: geary - A lightweight email program designed around conversations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849455
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Every mandatory checks are passed; only test cases are missing, and I'm not
able to quickly verify if cmake_install.cmake properly preserves timestamps
Package is APPROVED
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST 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 Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
there is such a file.
[-]: 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.
[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:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/849455-geary/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.
[-]: 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]: 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
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not inc
[Bug 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279 --- Comment #14 from Andy Grimm --- Actually, I don't have to duplicate much. I can just make /etc/eucalyptus/httpd, make that ServerRoot, and put a modules symlink under 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 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279 --- Comment #13 from Michael Scherer --- > What's the suggestion here? I used that so that specifying relative paths > for > modules would work. I'm open to other ideas here. I do not have any cleaner suggestion, but I wonder how this would work on a server non dedicated to eucalyptus. For example, I am not sure the default logs file would not end in /var/log/httpd due to link in /etc/httpd, this kind of thing. But if your test didn't show a issue, there is then likely no issue. And the only thing to do would be to duplicate the tree of /etc/httpd, that's not a good idea IMHO. For a minimal set of modules, I guess removing them one by one could be easy to do once the rpm is in, so that's not urgent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851641] Review Request: lprof - An open source color profiler that creates ICC compliant profiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851641 Sebastian Dyroff changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279 --- Comment #12 from Andy Grimm --- (In reply to comment #11) > In the spec, I only see this for eucalyptis-axis2-client, so is the > requirement missing ? > > %package axis2-clients > Summary: Axis2/C web service clients for Eucalyptus services > License: GPLv3 > Requires: wso2-axis2 yes, that's one of the many many things I'm fixing at the moment. Should have a new version posted soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851641] Review Request: lprof - An open source color profiler that creates ICC compliant profiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851641 --- Comment #1 from Sebastian Dyroff --- Created attachment 606894 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=606894&action=edit rpmlint output -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851641] New: Review Request: lprof - An open source color profiler that creates ICC compliant profiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851641 Bug ID: 851641 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: lprof - An open source color profiler that creates ICC compliant profiles Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: b...@dyroff.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://git.dyroff.org/?p=sdyroff-rpms.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/lprof.spec;h=e5aeb2456402c4fe47920de2d798625d0ce6dd53;hb=HEAD SRPM URL: http://www.dyroff.org/lprof-1.11.4.1-1.src.rpm Description: LProf is an open source color profiler that creates ICC compliant profiles for devices such as cameras, scanners and monitors. Fedora Account System Username:sdyroff This is my first package, so it needs a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279 --- Comment #11 from Michael Scherer --- In the spec, I only see this for eucalyptis-axis2-client, so is the requirement missing ? %package axis2-clients Summary: Axis2/C web service clients for Eucalyptus services License: GPLv3 Requires: wso2-axis2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279 --- Comment #10 from Andy Grimm --- (In reply to comment #7) > In file httpd-cc.conf, you have /usr/lib64 hardcoded, that's likely not > working on 32 bits. Ah, true; I don't ever use 32-bit, so I had not tested that yet. > I also find weird to have : > ServerRoot "/etc/httpd" > > even if i am likely too cuatious about potential side effects. What's the suggestion here? I used that so that specifying relative paths for modules would work. I'm open to other ideas here. > PidFile /var/run/eucalyptus/httpd.pid > > would be cleaner to use the suffix -cc there too, as this would be more > coherent with the -nc web service. Indeed, this is a bug. > Another potential improvement would be to have a common file that would be > included, and maybe removing a bit the various modules ( so 1) this would > take less memory, start faster and easier to read ). > > For example : > LoadModule userdir_module modules/mod_userdir.so > > seems weird there. setenvif_module is not used in the configuration so could > be dropped, etc, etc. > > Also, since it use mpm_event, maybe the other part of the config file could > be dropped : ( mpm_prefork_module, etc ) so the file is easier to read and > maintain ? I'm actually not yet sure which is our preferred mpm. And as for the other modules, I started with a very minimal list and got frustrated trying to figure out which modules are now required for a functional apache instance, so I added all of those which are enabled by default in Fedora's apache config. I would love to prune that list. Suggestions on a true minimally viable set would be great. And yes, a common file definitely makes sense. I'll work on that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851279] Review Request: eucalyptus - Elastic Utility Computing Architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851279 --- Comment #9 from Andy Grimm --- (In reply to comment #4) > Review would be surely easier if the source was splitted into smaller > component, but I guess that this would require a rather huge change upstream > :) > > I am also quite surprised by the number of BuildRequires, are we sure they > are all needed ? They are all requirements, but I am removing a number of them which are transitive. > For the license of eucalyptus-axis2-clients, that's GPLv3, not BSD in the > spec ? And if upstream do not ship license, you should ask them to include it Sorry, I missed that you mentioned that package; I was referring to the python subpackages. axis2-clients depends on eucalyptus-cc, which depends on eucalyptus, which contains the license file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
