[Bug 846928] Review Request: python-walkdir - Python module to manipulate and filter os.walk() style iteration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-walkdir-0.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-walkdir-0.3-1.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 846928] Review Request: python-walkdir - Python module to manipulate and filter os.walk() style iteration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-walkdir-0.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-walkdir-0.3-1.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 846928] Review Request: python-walkdir - Python module to manipulate and filter os.walk() style iteration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python-walkdir-0.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-walkdir-0.3-1.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 846928] Review Request: python-walkdir - Python module to manipulate and filter os.walk() style iteration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928 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 852914] python-rackspace-monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added CC|pin...@pingoured.fr,|nott...@redhat.com, |socho...@redhat.com |package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|fedora-review |Package Review Assignee|socho...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852851] Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851 --- Comment #2 from Matt Spaulding --- > > 6. The README specifies that the jar can be built with "ant -Ddebug=off all > doc" to avoid building in debug mode. This should probably be done. I assume > there is no need for debug mode since Java does not generate a debuginfo > package. So after getting some opinions on this it seems that building in debug mode should be fine, if not preferred. You can ignore this one :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825593] Review Request: bkhive - Dump the syskey bootkey from a Windows system hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825593 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- bkhive-1.1.1-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 825593] Review Request: bkhive - Dump the syskey bootkey from a Windows system hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825593 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- bkhive-1.1.1-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- joystick-support-1.0.0-4.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 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/joystick-support-1.0.0-4.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 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386 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 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius --- Some remarks: * The directory /usr/include/CImg is unowned and needs to be owned by this package (MUSTFIX): # rpm -qlp CImg-devel-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm | grep include /usr/include/CImg/CImg.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins /usr/include/CImg/plugins/add_fileformat.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/cimgIPL.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/cimg_ipl.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/cimgmatlab.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/draw_gradient.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/jpeg_buffer.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/loop_macros.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/nlmeans.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/skeleton.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/vrml.h /usr/include/CImg/plugins/vtk.h * [SHOULD] CImg.h includes a lot of headers from other packages. Rule of thumb is to add those packages owning unconditionally included headers, as "Requires:" to the "*-devel" packages. However, due to the "cpp magic" being applied in CImg.h, I am having difficulties in figuring out which of them are mandatory and which are optional ;) From what I can gather, at least libstdc++-devel needs to be BR:'ed, but I am not sure about the other headers (eg. X11 headers). * [SUGGESTION] The package contains an "examples" subdirectory. AFAIS, this directory could be utilized as "minimal" compilation test. I therefore would suggest to build it (e.g. "make linux" or "make mlinux") in %check. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833623] Review Request: mingw-nettle - Cross-compiled low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833623 --- Comment #3 from Michael Cronenworth --- Thanks. New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-nettle.spec New SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-nettle-2.4-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 --- Comment #14 from Michael Cronenworth --- Very well. I will defer to your judgement. Wrappers removed. New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-gmp.spec New SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-gmp-5.0.2-4.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436326 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833623] Review Request: mingw-nettle - Cross-compiled low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833623 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius --- Package fails to build in mock: ... m4 ../asm.m4 machine.m4 config.m4 \ aes-decrypt-internal.asm >aes-decrypt-internal.s /bin/sh: m4: command not found make[1]: *** [aes-decrypt-internal.o] Error 127 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/nettle-2.4/build_win32' make: *** [all] Error 2 make: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/nettle-2.4/build_win32' Seems to me, as if m4 isn't part of the tools being installed in mock by default anymore ;) => BR: m4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 --- Comment #5 from Jasper St. Pierre --- I've updated the specfile to update to the 0.2 release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 --- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > * What is reason to run the autotools while building? > > gmp is supposed to build fine for mingw without it (and it actually does). > > I was following the native package spec. I have removed this. Thanks. > > * What is the reason to ship and use gmp.h and gmp-mparam.h? > > See comment 10 or the comment I left in the spec. I followed the native > package in shipping these wrappers. I will copy it again here: > # Some apps seem to assume that they are building against the > # gmp source tree and require the source versions of the gmp.h > # and gmp-mparam.h files. Well, * the gmp.h-wrapper (gmp.h) is a (RH/Fedora-specific) cludge to work-around the original gmp.h not being multilib-capable. I.e. this wrapper is not required on single-arched/lib'ed systems, such as mingw. * The gmp-mparam.h-wrapper is a similar cludge/hack aiming at gmp-mparam.h not being multlib-capable, with similar considerations applying to it. The delicacy behind this: gmp does not export the gmp-mparam.h header. => No gmp package should ship it. Packages expecting it should be considered broken (I guess, this is what is meant by "some apps seem to .. gmp source-tree" in the comment above.) In other words, both wrappers are not necessary for mingw, shipping the gmp.h wrapper makes some (limited) sense, but shipping gmp-mparam.h doesn't. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852851] Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851
--- Comment #1 from Matt Spaulding ---
Hi Marek,
There's a few issues I've listed at the bottom that should be addressed.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: 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 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)"
[-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Patch0 (0001
[Bug 749608] Review Request: gnome-pie - A visual application launcher for Gnome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608 --- Comment #15 from Praveen Kumar --- (In reply to comment #14) > Scratch build: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434898 > > It fails because a missing desktop-file-utils in BuildRequires. Done http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436284 > > > Some more issues: > > Drop cairo-devel from BR, it is a requirement of gtk2-devel. But is it > really intended to compile it for gtk2? The previous package which I had > installed (see comment #10) depends on gtk3. In this case, drop gtk2-devel > from BR, and cairo is also unneeded. Unfortunately there's no choice, it > depends on the present packages at build time only. The package > libappindicator-devel as mentioned in README.md is not available from > Fedora, but it seems to build and work without that, see my recent test. Removed gtk2 and cairo dependencies added gtk3-devel in BR. > > You are using the version number from the last released package, but > actually you are using a Git snapshot. See the guidelines: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > Using the previous release for the package version is not OK. Corrected. > > However, the latest build failed, and we don't know yet if we will get a > usable debug package once it builds again. Still debug build is not useful. Updated SPEC: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/gnome-pie/gnome-pie.spec SRPM : http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/gnome-pie/gnome-pie-0.5.3-1.20120826git1b93e1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852851] Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847435] Review Request: perl-X11-Protocol-Other - Miscellaneous X11::Protocol helpers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847435 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-29 20:51:45 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-X11-Protocol-Other-18-1.fc16, shutter-0.89.1-2.fc16, perl-Net-Dropbox-API-1.8-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 --- Comment #12 from Michael Cronenworth --- (In reply to comment #11) > * What is reason to run the autotools while building? > gmp is supposed to build fine for mingw without it (and it actually does). I was following the native package spec. I have removed this. New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-gmp.spec New SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-gmp-5.0.2-3.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436277 > > * What is the reason to ship and use gmp.h and gmp-mparam.h? See comment 10 or the comment I left in the spec. I followed the native package in shipping these wrappers. I will copy it again here: # Some apps seem to assume that they are building against the # gmp source tree and require the source versions of the gmp.h # and gmp-mparam.h files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852892] Review Request: ddccontrol-db - DDC/CI control database for ddccontrol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892 Jan Vcelak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852893] Review Request: ddccontrol - Control your monitor by software using the DDC/CI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893 Jan Vcelak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852892] Review Request: ddccontrol-db - DDC/CI control database for ddccontrol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892 Jan Vcelak changed: What|Removed |Added Component|0x |Package Review Assignee|dw...@infradead.org |jvce...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dyroff ---
I am not a package maintainer and I am still looking for a sponsor.
I used gentlyweb-utils_1.5.orig.tar.gz for the review. Hope that the upstream
file with the right sha256sum will become available again.
I will annotate the checks that i have not marked as pass in the review below.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
see Matts' comment. It seem that i could download a file from upstream, but it
was not exactly the same.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
I think this is not applicable. I found no recommended compiler flag for java.
The package does not set java compiler flags.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
No GUI app.
[?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Some checks did not pass.
[-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
No subpackages
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
I don't know if it requires jpackage-utils. Maybe i missed something.
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
It is a library. It contains the class files and so on. Nothing really to test
here.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
I found version 2.2 is already released.
[?]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
I am not firm with maven. So i can't tell. It has a depmap call. It seems as if
does not rely on other java code. The depmap doesn't list any other package.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
There are no tests, upstream source doesn't include any test-cases.
This is the output of fedora-review including my manual checks.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
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.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /tmp/822831
-gentlyweb-utils/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.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[Bug 852893] Review Request: ddccontrol - Control your monitor by software using the DDC/CI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893 Jan Vcelak changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jvce...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840244] Review Request: surf-geometry - Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244 --- Comment #18 from pcpa --- May thanks for the review! New package addressing the issues: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry-1.0.6-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- hi Matt, there is not any difference in the sources could be used both ... but to simplify would keep the current version field (1.5) and use the second file ... how do you feel? http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/gentlyweb-utils/gentlyweb-utils_1.5.orig.tar.gz http://sourceforge.net/projects/josql/files/josql/stable-2.2/gentlyWEB-src-utils-1.1.tar.gz thanks regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 --- Comment #3 from Thibault North --- Oops forgot the FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Looking for 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 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Thibault North changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thibault.no...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thibault.no...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Thibault North --- I'll review this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898
--- Comment #1 from Gerd v. Egidy ---
Some additional info for review:
rpmlint output:
# rpmlint /home/gerd/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/CImg-devel-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint /home/gerd/rpmbuild/SRPMS/CImg-1.5.0-4.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint CImg.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I also did koji scratch builds for f16 to f18 which succeeded:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436135
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436149
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436182
The only thing I'm not 100% sure is the naming of the package: this is a C++
template library which consists only of a header file and documentation. There
is no .so or .a created or needed.
I was shown the package "eigen2" which is exactly the same kind. I modeled my
package exactly like that:
- the .spec is called CImg.spec
- it contains a %package devel
- all files are in %files devel
- there is no %files, so there is no CImg-%{version}...rpm created, just the
-devel one
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Gerd v. Egidy 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 852898] New: Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Bug ID: 852898 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: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: g...@egidy.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/gvegidy/photivo-rpm/raw/master/CImg/CImg.spec SRPM URL: http://www.egidy.de/fedora/CImg-1.5.0-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: The CImg Library is a small, open source, C++ toolkit for image processing. CImg defines classes and methods to manage images in your own C++ code. You can use it to load/save various file formats, access pixel values, display/transform/filter images, draw primitives (text, faces, curves, 3d objects, ...), compute statistics, manage user interactions on images, and so on... Fedora Account System Username: gvegidy The history of this package can be seen at https://github.com/gvegidy/photivo-rpm/tree/master/CImg This is the first package I want to maintain, so I also need a sponsor. I want to maintain this package because it is a dependency of two other programs I'm interested to also maintain in the near future: photivo (raw photo editor) and gmic (graphics filter pipeline system & plugin for gimp). I have contacted the upstream author David Tschumperlé. He included a patch from me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806037] Review Request: pygrib - Python module for reading and writing GRIB (editions 1 and 2) files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806037 --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich --- Building with openjpeg works, locally on F16 as well as on F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436093 I missed the newer API version somehow. I thought about spelling it "pre-cooked"! To my knowledge, BRing grib_api-static and g2clib-static should be enough. No need to have grib_api-devel and g2clib-devel too. That comment doesn't make sense: "# However, pygrib only requires them (which seems to happen automatically) # it does not BuildRequires them. # So no explicit BuildRequires is needed for jasper, openjpeg, png or zlib" Those libraries are linked with the Python module shared object. rpmbuild figures that out and sets Requires accordingly. Devel packages always require the base package. You therefore mostly need to specify devel packages as BR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852893] Review Request: ddccontrol - Control your monitor by software using the DDC/CI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvce...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852893] Review Request: ddccontrol - Control your monitor by software using the DDC/CI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||852892 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852892] Review Request: ddccontrol-db - DDC/CI control database for ddccontrol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org, ||jvce...@redhat.com Component|Package Review |0x Blocks||852893 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dw...@infradead.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 852893] New: Review Request: ddccontrol - Control your monitor by software using the DDC/CI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893 Bug ID: 852893 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: ddccontrol - Control your monitor by software using the DDC/CI protocol Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/ddccontrol/ddccontrol.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/ddccontrol/ddccontrol-0.4.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: DDCcontrol is a program to control monitor parameters, like brightness and contrast, by software, i.e. without using the OSD (On Screen Display) and the buttons in front of the monitor. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad rpmlint warning about incorrect FSF address - there is snail-mail address, but latest license text uses e-mail address, thus probably no problem, but I will forward it upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852892] New: Review Request: ddccontrol-db - DDC/CI control database for ddccontrol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892 Bug ID: 852892 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: ddccontrol-db - DDC/CI control database for ddccontrol Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/ddccontrol/ddccontrol-db.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/ddccontrol/ddccontrol-db-20061014-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: DDC/CU control database for DDCcontrol. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad This database is used by dddcontrol package. rpmlint warning about incorrect FSF address - there is snail-mail address, but latest license text uses e-mail address, thus probably no problem, but I will forward it upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Mario, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825599] Review Request: samdump2 - Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows SAM hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samdump2-3.0.0-1.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 825599] Review Request: samdump2 - Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows SAM hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- samdump2-3.0.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samdump2-3.0.0-1.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 825599] Review Request: samdump2 - Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows SAM hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samdump2-3.0.0-1.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 825599] Review Request: samdump2 - Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows SAM hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599 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 806037] Review Request: pygrib - Python module for reading and writing GRIB (editions 1 and 2) files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806037
--- Comment #6 from Jos de Kloe ---
new versions of the SRPM and SPEC file are here:
Spec URL: http://jdekloe.nl/Fedora/pygrib.spec
SRPM URL: http://jdekloe.nl/Fedora/pygrib-1.9.4-2.fc17.src.rpm
@Thomas:
> Don't own %{python_sitearch}/ directly. Just the files below it.
> Please be a bit more specific for %{_bindir}/*
both have been made more specific.
> Building seems to be somehow wrong (Just had a brief look...):
> import pygrib
> ImportError: ./pygrib.so: undefined symbol: grib_index_write
>
> Did you check, if this program works, when installed?
As said above the module does work on Rawhide.
On Fedora17 it fails because pyproj cannot be build.
pyproj in turn needs proj v4.8.0 which is not yet available for Fedora17, which
only is at proj v4.7.0 at the moment.
As soon as proj gets updated to 4.8.0 I'll try to get pygrib to build on
Fedora17 as well.
@Volker:
>grib_index_write was only defined in version 1.9 of the grib_api. As far as I
>>can see, we have 1.7 in Fedora.
current grib_api in Fedora17 has been updated to v1.9.16 so this is not a
problem anymore.
>Did you not specify 'export OPENJPEG_DIR="%{_usr}/"' for a reason? Also BR
>>openjpeg-devel if you decide to do so.
Yes this has a reason. By applying "trial-and-error" I tried to find a minimal
amount of enviroment settings needed to build the package. I found that
defining JASPER_DIR and PNG_DIR is sufficient.
I also found that OPENJPEG_DIR should NOT be specified. The build fails if it
is added.
> "%{__python} setup.py build" is enough. The flags are used anyway.
thanks. I removed the flags.
> You must require the -static provides for g2clib and grib_api.
this has been added as well.
> (There's a typo in "pre-coocked".)
thanks, fixed 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 835015] Review Request: xmonad-log-applet - Panel applet to display Xmonad log information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835015 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann --- Taking this for 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 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Matt Spaulding --- Looks like the upstream source for this package does not exist anymore. The website is there, but the tarball cannot be downloaded. I'm not sure how this changes things in regards to getting it into the distro. It might be that it's provided somewhere else now, though I haven't been able to find 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 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551 Kai Engert (:kaie) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Kai Engert (:kaie) --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: prepaid-manager-applet Short Description: An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards Owners: kengert ankursinha Branches: f17 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 851746] Review Request: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746 --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean --- Great. I left "urls" lower-cased... personal preference. I cut a new upstream release that removes the shebang. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/bitlyclip.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/bitlyclip-0.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851745] Review Request: python-bitlyapi - A thin python wrapper for the bit.ly REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745 --- Comment #8 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 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386 --- Comment #7 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 851745] Review Request: python-bitlyapi - A thin python wrapper for the bit.ly REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745 --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-bitlyapi Short Description: A thin python wrapper for the bit.ly REST API Owners: ralph Branches: f17 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 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386 Bruno Wolff III changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Bruno Wolff III --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: joystick-support Short Description: Load joystick / game pad drivers at boot time Owners: bruno Branches: f16, f17, f18, devel InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851745] Review Request: python-bitlyapi - A thin python wrapper for the bit.ly REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean --- Thanks Mario! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847385] Review Request: wmtictactoe - TicTacToe game as a dockapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to comment #1) > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (with incorrect > FSF address)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: > /home/daredevil/rpmbuild/847385-wmtictactoe/licensecheck.txt Seems to be false positive. The package is licensed as GPLv2+. And the GPLv2+ overrides the GPL anyway. Don't know what to do to make licensecheck happy again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787517] Review Request: dawati-artwork - Artwork for the Dawati UX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787517 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- Any progress with solving the mentioned problems? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852851] Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852851] New: Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851 Bug ID: 852851 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: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mgold...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jacorb/2.3.1-1.20120215git/jacorb.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jacorb/2.3.1-1.20120215git/jacorb-2.3.1-1.20120215git.fc17.src.rpm Description: The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4435429 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842386] Review Request: joystick - Enable joystick / game pad support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4435453
$ rpmlint -i -v *
joystick-support.noarch: I: checking
joystick-support.noarch: W: no-url-tag
The URL tag is missing.
joystick-support.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
joystick-support.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
joystick-support.src: I: checking
joystick-support.src: W: no-url-tag
The URL tag is missing.
joystick-support.src:42: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/../lib/modules-load.d/joystick.conf
The %{_libdir} or %{_lib} macro was found in a noarch package in a section
that gets included in binary packages. This is most likely an error because
these macros are expanded on the build host and their values vary between
architectures, probably resulting in a package that does not work properly on
all architectures at runtime. Investigate whether the package is really
architecture independent or if some other dir/macro should be instead.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
All of the rpmlint issues can be ignored, as earlier discussed in the
floppy-support package.
-
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.
[.] 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.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackag
[Bug 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jasypt Short Description: Java Simplified Encryption Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735554] Review Request: floppy-support - Load floppy driver at boot time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735554 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- floppy-support-1.0.0-4.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 851746] Review Request: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746
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 ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
bitlyclip.noarch: I: checking
bitlyclip.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) urls -> curls, purls, hurls
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ly -> l, y, lye
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US url -> URL, curl,
purl
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ly -> l, y, lye
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotkey -> hokey,
hockey, hot key
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/bitlyclip
(timeout 10 seconds)
bitlyclip.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitlyclip/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
bitlyclip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bitlyclip
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
bitlyclip.src: I: checking
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) urls -> curls, purls, hurls
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ly -> l, y, lye
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US url -> URL, curl, purl
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ly -> l, y, lye
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotkey -> hokey, hockey,
hot key
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
bitlyclip.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/bitlyclip (timeout
10 seconds)
bitlyclip.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bitlyclip/bitlyclip-0.2.1.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
bitlyclip.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bitlyclip/bitlyclip-0.2.1.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
Most of the spelling errors are ignorable, just "urls" could be better "URLs".
Please check out what to do with __init__.py. Maybe it helps to add the usual
header for noarch Python packages:
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
Or simply remove the shebang. Scripts in %{python_sitelib} usually don't have
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 851745] Review Request: python-bitlyapi - A thin python wrapper for the bit.ly REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann --- New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4435402 The same rpmlint output as above, no blockers. PACKAGE APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 749608] Review Request: gnome-pie - A visual application launcher for Gnome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608 --- Comment #14 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434898 It fails because a missing desktop-file-utils in BuildRequires. Some more issues: Drop cairo-devel from BR, it is a requirement of gtk2-devel. But is it really intended to compile it for gtk2? The previous package which I had installed (see comment #10) depends on gtk3. In this case, drop gtk2-devel from BR, and cairo is also unneeded. Unfortunately there's no choice, it depends on the present packages at build time only. The package libappindicator-devel as mentioned in README.md is not available from Fedora, but it seems to build and work without that, see my recent test. You are using the version number from the last released package, but actually you are using a Git snapshot. See the guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages Using the previous release for the package version is not OK. However, the latest build failed, and we don't know yet if we will get a usable debug package once it builds again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847867] Review Request: julius - Large vocabulary continuous speech recognition (LVCSR) decoder software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847867 Randall "Randy" Berry changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Randall "Randy" Berry --- -== Approved ==- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784175] Review Request: SuperLU - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175 --- Comment #13 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 784175] Review Request: SuperLU - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Shakthi Kannan --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: SuperLU Short Description: Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: shakthimaan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851747] 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 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- I thought it would be best to stay with the official plugin. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889
--- Comment #3 from Matt Spaulding ---
Great! Here's my formal review:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
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.
[-]: 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
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST 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: "Apache (v2.0)"
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and buil
[Bug 852623] Review Request: perl-XML-Catalog - Resolve public identifiers and remap system identifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852623 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-XML-Catalog-0.02-1.fc1 ||9 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-29 11:58:46 --- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Thank you for the review and the 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 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 --- Comment #8 from Lukas Zapletal --- I really do not understand why rpmbuild is quoting the parameter. Tried several scenarios, without any luck. I will need to patch 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 851768] Review Request: mod_rpaf - Changes the remote IP in Apache to use client IP and not proxy IP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851768 --- Comment #1 from Sebastien Caps --- el6 build ok http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434512 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius --- 2 questions: * What is reason to run the autotools while building? gmp is supposed to build fine for mingw without it (and it actually does). * What is the reason to ship and use gmp.h and gmp-mparam.h? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||at...@redhat.com --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla --- Adding quagga maintainer. Adam, would you be averse to splitting out quagga's babeld into quagga-babeld so I can Conflict with just that, in case people want to use quagga and babeld but not quagga's babeld? Or should I just conflict with quagga? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848043] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute force attacks against ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848043 --- Comment #13 from Sebastien Caps --- fc18 build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434562 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #18 from Michael Scherer --- That's the same upstream in both case, and while I didn't check the code, I understand this mail as "I took my code and put it in quagga" : http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2012-February/009122.html But the easiest IMHO would be to either split quagga in sub package and conflict with quagga-babeld, or just conflict with quagga as a whole. renaming everything would likely introduce various breakage. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778 --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434540 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847385] Review Request: wmtictactoe - TicTacToe game as a dockapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847385] Review Request: wmtictactoe - TicTacToe game as a dockapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385
--- Comment #1 from Praveen Kumar ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: 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. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (with incorrect
FSF address)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/daredevil/rpmbuild/847385-wmtictactoe/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
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files se
[Bug 852778] New: Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778 Bug ID: 852778 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: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: kalevlem...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/clutter-gst2.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/clutter-gst2-1.9.90-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Clutter is an open source software library for creating fast, visually rich and animated graphical user interfaces. Clutter GStreamer enables the use of GStreamer with Clutter. Fedora Account System Username: kalev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla --- Given that this is the referece implementation, it seems like having quagga rename theirs would be preferable. WRT duplication, is it really duplication? My understanding was that quagga's was a separate implementation of the protocol. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852623] Review Request: perl-XML-Catalog - Resolve public identifiers and remap system identifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852623 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852326] Review Request: powerpc-utils-python - python utilities for PowerPC systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852326 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 --- Comment #20 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 821094] Review Request: scamper - A network measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821094 --- Comment #9 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 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 --- Comment #7 from Petr Šabata --- I usually just patch config.mk to suit Fedora needs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 --- Comment #6 from Lukas Zapletal --- I see it's not used: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3526/4433526/build.log Investigating. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211
--- Comment #5 from Lukas Zapletal ---
It's unused by default, I have decided to leverage it until there is a new
version with dedicated variables for packagers.
config.mk:
CFLAGS += -g --std=c99 -pedantic -Wall -Wno-overlength-strings -Os ${INCS}
${STATIC} ${CPPFLAGS}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 Ondrej Kozina changed: What|Removed |Added Group|qa, private, devel | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817597] Review Request: luola - A 2-4 player 2D caveflying game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817597 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki | |.fi)| --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola --- Hold your horses. You were missing for almost four months, what was the reason? The informal review is not ok, it's supposed to be a full fledged review - it's only called informal because you don't have the right to approve reviews just yet since you're not a packager. A proper review is such as the one Mikolaj Izdebski did in bug #845769. And we're not that picky about spellings in Fedora - if it's proper, understandable English, it's OK. So no need to fuss about color/colour, meter/metre and so on. Please perform two fully fledged informal reviews. I'll have a look at the package 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 817597] Review Request: luola - A 2-4 player 2D caveflying game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817597 jonas.rebm...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki ||.fi) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852329] Review Request: vdsm-hooks - Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329 --- Comment #4 from Federico Simoncelli --- Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/vdsm-hooks/vdsm-hooks.spec SRPM URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/vdsm-hooks/vdsm-hook-4.9.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks Fedora Account System Username: fsimonce Branch: EL-6 * Wed Aug 29 2012 Federico Simoncelli - 4.9.6-1 - add the upstream vcs information - add the vdsm package dependency -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852329] Review Request: vdsm-hooks - Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329 --- Comment #3 from Alan Pevec --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > Branch: EL-6 > > BTW, rawhide branch is always created for new packages NM, there are examples of "Only ever a EPEL6 package." e.g. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-webob1.0.git/plain/dead.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 852329] Review Request: vdsm-hooks - Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329 --- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec --- (In reply to comment #0) > Branch: EL-6 BTW, rawhide branch is always created for new packages, not sure what's your plan for vdsm-hook-* subpackages of vdsm in Fedora, they would conflict with this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852329] Review Request: vdsm-hooks - Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329
Alan Pevec changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ape...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Alan Pevec ---
Preliminary quick review:
* rpmlint vdsm-hooks.spec
vdsm-hooks.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: vdsm-4.9.6.tar.gz
It's quite unsual to have 2 SRPM from one upstream tarball, but at least
provide full URL or comments how the tarball is generated:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
* all vdsm-hook-* need to depend on vdsm, since they're under
%{_libexecdir}/vdsm/
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
