[Bug 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562

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 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
nqp-0.0.2012.07-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nqp-0.0.2012.07-5.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 852329] Review Request: vdsm-hooks - Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329

--- Comment #5 from Alan Pevec  ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> - add the upstream vcs information

ok

> - add the vdsm package dependency

ok, this is now correct from a packaging guidelines perspective, but now we
have the other issue: vdsm is not in base or optional RHEL channel so EPEL
cannot depend on it (repoclosure must be possible with base RHEL subscription)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 828188] Review Request: reprepro - Debian package repository producer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828188

--- Comment #6 from Sebastien Caps  ---
Fedora 18 removed db4-devel package, switching to libdb-devel build dependence

SPEC:
http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012083009/reprepro.spec
SRPM:
http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012083009/reprepro-4.12.3-3.fc16.src.rpm

F18 Build 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436849

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 807479] Review Request: spacewalk-setup-jabberd - Tools to setup jabberd for Spacewalk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807479

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 807479] Review Request: spacewalk-setup-jabberd - Tools to setup jabberd for Spacewalk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807479

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
spacewalk-setup-jabberd-1.8.5-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-setup-jabberd-1.8.5-1.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 807479] Review Request: spacewalk-setup-jabberd - Tools to setup jabberd for Spacewalk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807479

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
spacewalk-setup-jabberd-1.8.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-setup-jabberd-1.8.5-1.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 807479] Review Request: spacewalk-setup-jabberd - Tools to setup jabberd for Spacewalk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807479

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
spacewalk-setup-jabberd-1.8.5-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-setup-jabberd-1.8.5-1.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 852851] Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851

--- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann  ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> Issues:
> 
> 1. License file exists under "doc" directory along with other documentation
> files. These need to be added to the package in %doc section.

Added! Totally forgot about this one.

> 2. This does not appear to be the latest version of the package available.
> I'm assuming that this version is needed for compatibility with another
> package. If that's not the case, please package the newer version.

You're correct this is a special version required by JBoss AS. I hope to remove
the dependency on Jacorb in the future. But it'll take some time.

> 3. Patches should be prefixed with %{name}. This isn't a big deal, but fix
> if you can.

I explained it in another review, but I'm happy to do this once again:

1. These patches are generated by git and git prefixes them with the numbers.
2. These numbers let you know which patches should be applied first.
3. Numbering in front makes it easy to understand the patch order when looking
at the sources directory.
4. Every patch is put in Fedora in a repository of a special name (in this case
'jacorb'), there is no need to duplicate the name in patches.

Hope this makes my POV more clear. I would like to stick with the numbering.

> 4. Minor typo in the %description section. "containse" should be "contains".

Fixed!

> 5. RPMLint is warning of class-path-in-manifest in the jar file.

Fixed!

> 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.

Skipped, as per comment #2.

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436898

Spec URL:
http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jacorb/2.3.1-2.20120215git/jacorb.spec
SRPM URL:
http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jacorb/2.3.1-2.20120215git/jacorb-2.3.1-2.20120215git.fc17.src.rpm

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 852329] Review Request: vdsm-hooks - Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hooks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329

--- Comment #6 from Dan Yasny  ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> ok, this is now correct from a packaging guidelines perspective, but now we
> have the other issue: vdsm is not in base or optional RHEL channel so EPEL
> cannot depend on it (repoclosure must be possible with base RHEL
> subscription)

every package in EPEL should have one in RHEL channels? But the whole idea is
to have packages that are not shipped in RHEL channels, isn't 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 830587] Review Request: hiera-puppet - Puppet front-ends and back-ends for hiera

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830587

Ulrich Schwickerath  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ulrich.schwicker...@cern.ch

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 830587] Review Request: hiera-puppet - Puppet front-ends and back-ends for hiera

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830587

Ulrich Schwickerath  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 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

Tomáš Bžatek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tbza...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tbza...@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 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551

Kai Engert (:kaie)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 832670] Review Request: libmusicbrainz5-5.0.1 - Library for accessing MusicBrainz servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832670

Bastien Nocera  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bnoc...@redhat.com

--- Comment #7 from Bastien Nocera  ---
Can you close this bug, or attach it to the errata for the F18 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 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

--- Comment #2 from Tomáš Bžatek  ---
> MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build 
> produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
rpmlint is clean except one warning:
clutter-gst2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
This is however explained in the spec file and is actually correct for the
moment. Please don't forget to include documentation when conflicts are
resolved.
> MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
Ok
> MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format 
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
Ok
> MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
Ok, the spec file is pretty formatted and clean
> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet 
> the Licensing Guidelines
Ok, LGPLv2+
> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
Ok, licence matches
> 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.
Ok
> MUST: The spec file must be written in American English
Ok
> MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
Ok
> 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.
Ok, downloaded the source tarball and checked
> MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at 
> least one primary architecture.
Ok, compiles fine on fresh rawhide on x86-64
> 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.
Not needed
> 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.
BRs look sane, suggesting to add standard tools like libtool and perhaps also
version requirements. It's not needed for the moment given the dependencies are
new major releases with stable API and version requirements are usually added
for further versions as needed.
> MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the 
> %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
No locales present, this is a library
> 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.
Ok, calls are present
> MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Ok
> 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
Ok, not the case
> 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.
Ok, seems to be not needed
> 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)
Ok
> MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set 
> with executable permissions, for example.
Ok
> MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Ok
> MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
Ok
> MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition 
> of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted 
> to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
Ok, not needed
> MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime 
> of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run 
> properly if it is not present.
Ok
> MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
Ok, not present
> MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
Ok
> MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base 
> package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = 
> %{version}-%{release}
Ok, the require is present
> MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be 
> removed in the

[Bug 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

--- Comment #3 from Tomáš Bžatek  ---
Package compiles fine on local system as well as in Koji (scratch build):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4437079

Packages install without conflicts on a rawhide system.

This package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

Tomáš Bžatek  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 832670] Review Request: libmusicbrainz5-5.0.1 - Library for accessing MusicBrainz servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832670

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 832670] Review Request: libmusicbrainz5-5.0.1 - Library for accessing MusicBrainz servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832670

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
libmusicbrainz5-5.0.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-12837/libmusicbrainz5-5.0.1-2.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 832670] Review Request: libmusicbrainz5-5.0.1 - Library for accessing MusicBrainz servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832670

--- Comment #9 from Christophe Fergeau  ---
Attached to the errata

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||ape...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
  Flags||fedora-review-
Last Closed||2012-08-30 06:19:52

--- Comment #7 from Alan Pevec  ---
> every package in EPEL should have one in RHEL channels?

What I was saying is that every pkg in EPEL can only depend on base RHEL +
optional repo.

So even if you move hooks to e.g. /usr/libexec/vdsm-hook to avoid direct vdms
dependency, which would solve
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
but then we're hitting
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits

Considering this, I recommend to provide vdsm-hooks RPM in a separate
unsupported repo at ovirt.org,  last spec w/ vdms dep is good enough, if you
document clearly that it depends on RHEV channel which contains vdsm.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329

--- Comment #8 from Alan Pevec  ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> last spec w/ vdms dep is good enough

Actually, one thing: Name field must match spec filename, now it's:
vdsm-hooks.spec
 vs
Name:   vdsm-hook

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892

Jan Vcelak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c
   ||om)

--- Comment #1 from Jan Vcelak  ---
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).
[!]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
 Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
 diff).

 I suppose the specfile outside the SRPM is more recent. Please, confirm.

[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
 least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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.

 spec file states GPL+, included COPYING file is GPLv2

[x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.

 One error which is justified in review request.

[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 SourceX tarball generation or download is 

[Bug 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889

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 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
jasypt-1.9.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jasypt-1.9.0-2.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 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
jasypt-1.9.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jasypt-1.9.0-2.fc17

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551

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 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
prepaid-manager-applet-0.0.3.1-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/prepaid-manager-applet-0.0.3.1-5.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 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
prepaid-manager-applet-0.0.3.1-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/prepaid-manager-applet-0.0.3.1-5.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 848551] Review Request: prepaid-manager-applet - An applet for the GNOME Desktop for GSM mobile prepaid SIM cards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551

Kai Engert (:kaie)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2012-08-30 06:58:28

--- Comment #17 from Kai Engert (:kaie)  ---
Ankur Sinha, you have full rights for the package, thanks a lot for your
initial work.

Mario, thanks a lot for your help with the package review.

Jon, thanks for creating the package in git, I confirm things work well!

f17
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4437248

f18
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4437240

Closing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
  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 725292] Review Request: s3fs - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA
  Flags|needinfo?(k...@blegh.net)|
Last Closed||2012-08-30 07:30:11

--- Comment #20 from Neil Horman  ---
no response in over a month.  closing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer  ---
There is a few warning with %defattr and others, and I would recommend to clean
them ( because i like clean stuff ), otherwise, that's good.

For some reason, the log file was not created however, maybe just systemd
integration ( or maybe just me ). Anyway, unless i can do real testing, i will
consider this is something that you can address once you start to use it.

package approved.


Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
 for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "MIT/X11 (BSD like)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
 /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/850791-ahcpd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
 Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: No description
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
 Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[x]: If the source package 

[Bug 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
I'll look at the log issue.  Thanks very much!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: ahcpd
Short Description: Ad-hoc network configuration daemon
Owners: limb
Branches: f16 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 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853050] New: Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050

Bug ID: 853050
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: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hawtbuf.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hawtbuf-1.9-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: This library implements a simple interface with working with
byte arrays. It is a shame that the Java SDK did not come with
a built in class that was just simply a byte[], int offset,
int length class which provided a rich interface similar to
what the String class does for char arrays. This library
fills in that void by providing a Buffer class which does provide
that rich interface.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853052] New: Review Request: hawtdispatch - The libdispatch style API for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853052

Bug ID: 853052
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: hawtdispatch - The libdispatch style
API for Java
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hawtdispatch.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hawtdispatch-1.11-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: HawtDispatch is a small (less than 100k) thread pooling and
NIO event notification framework API modeled after the
libdispatch API that Apple created to power the Grand Central
Dispatch (GCD) technology in OS X. It allows you to easily develop
multi-threaded applications without having to deal with the
problems that traditionally plague multi-threaded application
development.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||853052

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853052] Review Request: hawtdispatch - The libdispatch style API for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853052

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||853050

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893

Jan Vcelak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c
   ||om)

--- Comment #1 from Jan Vcelak  ---
Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

 C/C++ 
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
 present.


 Generic 
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.

 Incorrect FSF address were justified.

[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 %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

 The desktop file is in a wrong subpackage. It should be in -gtk
subpackage.

[x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
 there is such a file.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

 Why are the manual pages gzipped manually? Isn't this performed by
rpmbuild?

 Is configuration file for autoloading really needed? If it is, you should
relocate the configuration file to /usr/lib/modules-load.d/%{name}.conf.

[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (with incorrect
 FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)" For detailed output of licensecheck
 see file:
 /home/fcelda/devel/fedora/review/852893-ddccontrol/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
 Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.

 Subpackage gtk requires the main package twice, with ISA and without, why?

[!]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.

 Please, justify: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency

[x]: MUS

[Bug 853055] New: Review Request: mqtt-client - A Java MQTT Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055

Bug ID: 853055
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: mqtt-client - A Java MQTT Client
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mqtt-client.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mqtt-client-1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: mqtt-client provides an ASL 2.0 licensed API to MQTT. It takes
care of 
automatically reconnecting to your MQTT server and restoring your client 
session if any network failures occur. Applications can use a blocking 
API style, a futures based API, or a callback/continuations passing API 
style.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||853055

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853055] Review Request: mqtt-client - A Java MQTT Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||853052, 853050

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853052] Review Request: hawtdispatch - The libdispatch style API for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853052

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||853055

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 846662] Review Request: eclipse-ecf - Eclipse Communication Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846662

Krzysztof Daniel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |---
  Flags||fedora-cvs?
   Keywords||Reopened

--- Comment #8 from Krzysztof Daniel  ---
This package is also needed in f18.


New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: eclipse-ecf
Short Description: Eclipse Communication Framework
Owners: kdaniel akurtako
Branches: f18 f19
InitialCC: kdaniel

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853055] Review Request: mqtt-client - A Java MQTT Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055

Erik Schilling  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ablu.erikschilling@googlema
   ||il.com

--- Comment #1 from Erik Schilling  ---
You srpm looks to be for fc16. but it looks like hawtbuf does not exist here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4437592
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4437591

(I am new to packaging though so i maybe got something wrong).

Best regards,
Erik

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853055] Review Request: mqtt-client - A Java MQTT Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853055

--- Comment #2 from Erik Schilling  ---
Sorry just saw this request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

--- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember  ---
Thanks for the review, Tomáš!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

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 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
ahcpd-0.53-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ahcpd-0.53-2.fc17

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
ahcpd-0.53-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ahcpd-0.53-2.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 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
ahcpd-0.53-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ahcpd-0.53-2.fc16

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050

Erik Schilling  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ablu.erikschilling@googlema
   ||il.com

--- Comment #1 from Erik Schilling  ---
Hi.

First: I am no "packager". This is an informal review:

Source0 should point to a location where the upstream tarball is located.
Also it looks like you took latest git status. There are tags inside of the git
repository that mark the releases. Checkout
https://github.com/fusesource/hawtbuf/tags.
You can also set the Source0 url to this location.

Making use of %{name} in the Source0 field cannot hurt either.

Best regards,
Erik

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050

--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
hi Erik,
i haven't intention to use the upstream taraball.
the %{name} in the Source0 field could add in a second time, but for now isnt
in my "roadmap".
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 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: clutter-gst2
Short Description: GStreamer integration for Clutter
Owners: kalev
Branches: f18
InitialCC:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

Kalev Lember  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 846662] Review Request: eclipse-ecf - Eclipse Communication Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846662

--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Use a Package Change Request, not a New Package Request.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778

--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853124] New: Review Request: stompclt - Versatile STOMP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853124

Bug ID: 853124
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: stompclt - Versatile STOMP client
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: massimo.pala...@gmail.com
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/stompclt/stompclt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/stompclt/stompclt-0.5-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: stompclt is a versatile tool to interact with messaging brokers
speaking
STOMP and/or message queues (see Messaging::Message::Queue) on disk.

It receives messages (see Messaging::Message) from an incoming module,
optionally massaging them (i.e. filtering and/or modifying), and sends
them to an outgoing module. Depending on which modules are used, the tool
can perform different operations.
Fedora Account System Username: mpaladin

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852326

baude  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||846989 (F18Alphappc)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852326

baude  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ba...@us.ibm.com

--- Comment #5 from baude  ---
I've add this to the F18 PPC64 alpha blocker for tracking.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 832670] Review Request: libmusicbrainz5 - Library for accessing MusicBrainz servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832670

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |libmusicbrainz5-5.0.1 - |libmusicbrainz5 - Library
   |Library for accessing   |for accessing MusicBrainz
   |MusicBrainz servers |servers

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

--- Comment #3 from Praveen Kumar  ---
As fedora wiki says for Incorrect-fsf-address only requirement is upstream
should be informed, and it's not patched by packager.
I also confirmed on IRC and according to there suggestion "the FSF changed
their mailing address not long ago and rpmlint is just checking if the mailing
address is the current one" but once you have to informed the upstream about
this.

Everything else looks good.

=== Approve 

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

Praveen Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |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 817597] Review Request: luola - A 2-4 player 2D caveflying game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817597

--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
Not to be a pain, but:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description

"
Please put personal preferences aside and use American English spelling in the
summary and description. Packages can contain additional translated
summary/description for supported Non-English languages, if available.
"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 847385] Review Request: wmtictactoe - TicTacToe game as a dockapp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann  ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> As fedora wiki says for Incorrect-fsf-address only requirement is upstream
> should be informed, and it's not patched by packager.
> I also confirmed on IRC and according to there suggestion "the FSF changed
> their mailing address not long ago and rpmlint is just checking if the
> mailing address is the current one" but once you have to informed the
> upstream about this.

Unfortunately, upstream is dead for a long time. Well, I could try to send a
mail to the former maintainer, but I don't expect to get an answer. Perhaps we
need some additional rules, such as:
"If the upstream project is obviously dead, the packager should decide if he
changes the address."

Thanks for your review!


New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: wmtictactoe
Short Description: TicTacToe game as a dockapp
Owners: mariobl
Branches: f17 f18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831

--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gentlyweb-utils/1/gentlyweb-utils.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gentlyweb-utils/1/gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc16.src.rpm

- changed SOURCE0 no more available at
http://gentlyweb-utils.sourcearchive.com/downloads/1.5-1

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 817597] Review Request: luola - A 2-4 player 2D caveflying game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817597

--- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola  ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Not to be a pain, but:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description
> 
> "Please put personal preferences aside and use American English spelling in
> the summary and description. Packages can contain additional translated
> summary/description for supported Non-English languages, if available."

Still, the statement is rather mild (a SHOULD, not a MUST). If the rule really
was reinforced, there'd be a lot more language policing around. I'd spend my
resources on improving the summaries and descriptions that are found lacking or
are in broken English.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914

Sebastian Dyroff  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||b...@dyroff.org

--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Dyroff  ---
I am doing an informal review, as i am no package maintainer.

First the issues:

[!]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
 Note: rackspace-monitoring.spec should be python-rackspace-
 monitoring.spec
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
 there are tests in the upstream source package. But it is only should
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
 see spec <-> package name

Some things i stumbled over (maybe because i didn't know better):
- I wonder if there is a difference in using python instead of %{__python}. 
- If i understood the PKG-INFO correctly upstream thinks this is python3
compatible, maybe this package could be packaged for both version.

Regards!

The full review.

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.
[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/852914
 -rackspace-monitoring/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
 Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[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.
[!]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
 Note: rackspace-monitoring.spec should be python-rackspace-
 monitoring.spec
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Pack

[Bug 807479] Review Request: spacewalk-setup-jabberd - Tools to setup jabberd for Spacewalk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807479

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
spacewalk-setup-jabberd-1.8.5-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 846928] Review Request: python-walkdir - Python module to manipulate and filter os.walk() style iteration

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-walkdir-0.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
nqp-0.0.2012.07-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 850791] Review Request: ahcpd - Ad-hoc network configuration daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850791

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
ahcpd-0.53-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 822889] Review Request: jasypt - Java Simplified Encryption

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
jasypt-1.9.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 820115] Review Request: leptonica - C library for efficient image processing and image analysis operations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820115

Sergio Monteiro Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ser...@serjux.com

--- Comment #12 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
Hi, 
we need this to update tesseract-ocr to 3.01 else:

checking for leptonica... configure: error: leptonica not found

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

--- 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 835015] Review Request: xmonad-log-applet - Panel applet to display Xmonad log information

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835015

--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4438643

$ rpmlint -i -v *
xmonad-log-applet.src: I: checking
xmonad-log-applet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces ->
work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -> HS, sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet (timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/downloads/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet/xmonad-log-applet-2.0.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
xmonad-log-applet-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url
https://github.com/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet (timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
xmonad-log-applet-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://github.com/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet (timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet-gnome.i686: I: checking
xmonad-log-applet-gnome.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-gnome.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -> HS,
sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-gnome.i686: I: checking-url
https://github.com/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet (timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet-gnome.x86_64: I: checking
xmonad-log-applet-gnome.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-gnome.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs ->
HS, sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-gnome.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://github.com/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet (timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet.spec: I: checking-url
https://github.com/downloads/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet/xmonad-log-applet-2.0.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet-xfce.i686: I: checking
xmonad-log-applet-xfce.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces
-> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-xfce.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -> HS,
sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-xfce.i686: I: checking-url
https://github.com/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet (timeout 10 seconds)
xmonad-log-applet-xfce.x86_64: I: checking
xmonad-log-applet-xfce.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-xfce.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs ->
HS, sh, gs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

xmonad-log-applet-xfce.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://github.com/alexkay/xmonad-log-applet (timeout 10 seconds)
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.


A few spelling errors, to be ignored.


There are still some problems:

All entries in %doc and the png file appear in both packages. This will cause a
package conflict if someone tries to install both. My proposal: Put the
mentioned files in the base package (which actually doesn't exist yet) and
don't forget to let it be required by both subpackages.

The -gnome package pulls only libpanel-applet-4.so.0 as a dependency, means
that the folder %{_datadir}/gnome-panel/4.0/applets/ needs to be owned. Add
gnome-panel manually, which solves this problem. The same in the -xfce package,
which needs xfce4-panel as a runtime requirement. After all, shouldn't be
Xmonad to be added as a dependency to the main package?

Maybe we need a way to force the user to don't install the base package only,
which wouldn't make sense. Either -gnome or -xfce should be needed. My idea:
Add a "Provides: xmonad-log-applet-foo" to both packages and vice versa a
"Requires: xmonad-log-applet-foo" to the main package. But I don't know if Yum
can solve this correctly. I assume that the user will be asked for installing
each of the packages.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 749608] Review Request: gnome-pie - A visual application launcher for Gnome

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608

--- Comment #16 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4439104

Again the same issue from rpmlint:

gnome-pie-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected.  Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.

CFLAGS in the "make" call (as proposed by me) are useless here. I don't know
how this works in Vala, in any case we need a usable debug package. You should
ask upstream developers which extra compiler flags are needed, or maybe they
have another solution. A similar problem has been discussed earlier in bug
#569582.


Once this has been solved, your package is ready for approval.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

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 847385] Review Request: wmtictactoe - TicTacToe game as a dockapp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
wmtictactoe-1.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmtictactoe-1.1-2.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 847385] Review Request: wmtictactoe - TicTacToe game as a dockapp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
wmtictactoe-1.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wmtictactoe-1.1-2.fc17

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 837988] Review Request: python-alembic - A database migration tool for SQLAlchemy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837988

Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||a.bad...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a.bad...@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  ---
1f44d48d329e9a1b1d6ab72303797edf653fc1145260ff12d6463308190fce6a 
alembic-0.3.4.tar.gz

Good:
* Package naming follows the naming guidelines
* License is MIT and matches in source and spec
* License included as %doc
* Spec file is readable
* Source matches upstream
* No locale files
* No shared libraries
* No bundled libs
* Not relocatable
* No files listed more than once
* Macros used consistently
* Code, not content
* No large doc files
* Doc files do not affect application at runtime
* Not a GUI application
* Builds in koji
* Owns all directories it creates and nothing more
* All filenames are utf-8
* Tested that alembic init works on F16.
* No file dependencies
* man pages see below

Needswork:

* The docs directory should be included in the packages.
* Would like confirmation from upstream that python3 is something they support.
  Have asked Ralph on IRC and we're awaiting an answer.

rpmlint:
python3-alembic.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-alembic
python-alembic.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary alembic

These are warnings because it's only a should.  The idea is if there's man
pages available somewhere we should ship them. But we're not requiring
packagers to write one from scratch.  Looks like debian has manpages generated
by help2man.  We can either utilize theirs or run help2man ourselves.

http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-modules/packages/alembic/tags/0.3.4%2Bds-3/debian/alembic.1?revision=22440&view=markup&pathrev=22440

or:
BuildRequires: help2man

%build
[...]
mkdir bin

echo 'python -c "import alembic.config; alembic.config.main()" $*' >
bin/alembic
chmod 0755 bin/*alembic
help2man --version-string %{version} --no-info -s 1 bin/alembic > alembic.1

# And similar in the python3 portion:
echo 'python3 -c "import alembic.config; alembic.config.main()" $*' >
bin/python3-alembic
chmod 0755 bin/*alembic
help2man  --version-string %{version} --no-info -s 1 bin/python3-alembic >
python3-alembic.1

%install
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
install -m 0644 alembic.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/alembic.1
[...]
# python3 portion
install -m 0644 python3-alembic.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/python3-alembic.1

I prefer running help2man ourselves so that the listed version will match.


python-alembic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
python-alembic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow

You can change the case of these two if you like

python-alembic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlalchemy ->
alchemy

This one is a false positive.

Cosmetic:
* In %files add a trailing slash to directories.  Makes it apparent to future
  maintainers/random people downloading the srpm that it's intentional
* This is really trivial:  Summary doesn't need to begin with an article or end
  with punctuation.  So it could be: "Database migration tool for SQLAlchemy"

Notes:
* Upstream has updated to 0.3.6
* I've offered to update python-sqlalchemy0.7 in EPEL6 -- waiting for an EPEL6
  maintainer response

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 781823] Review Request: easyplay - An easy to use categories- and playlists-based music player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781823

--- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Ping...?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831

--- Comment #5 from Matt Spaulding  ---
Sebastian,

Very good review! Here is my official one. Mostly a rehash of what you have
already stated.


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.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "Apache (v2.0)"
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
 Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 Note: Typo addressed below.
[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).
[-]: 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.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
 Note: Source0 (gentlyWEB-src-utils-1.1.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description

[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831

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 846488] Review Request: babeltrace - Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846488

--- Comment #2 from Yannick Brosseau  ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hi just a quick note:
> 
> The %defattr lines can be dropped.
> 
> Best regards
> Erik Schillig (Ablu)

Thanks, I forgot that 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 810875] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810875

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mgans...@alice.de

--- Comment #3 from MartinKG  ---
@mario,
I want to try to create a guayadeque fedora package.

I know there are a lot of incorrect-fsf-address messages from rpmlint
and 2 spurious-executable-perm messages that must be reported upstream,
i will do this later. Pleas can someone reopen the review, or should i
create a new one ?.

Spec URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830.1/guayadeque.spec?a=PKs-IsKaB7c

SRPM URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830.1/guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830.1.fc17.src.rpm?a=5-SnN0TflHY

rpmlint output:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830.1/guayadeque-rpmlint.txt?a=3wuGytk7vj0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898

--- Comment #5 from Gerd v. Egidy  ---
Hi Ralf,

thank you very much for looking into this.

> * The directory /usr/include/CImg is unowned and needs to be owned by this
> package (MUSTFIX):

done

> * [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.

good idea, done.

> 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).

yeah, libstdc++-devel and glibc-headers are always needed. But from what I
could see X11 (and the other stuff) is optional. You need to set defines before
they are included.

> * [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.

done.

New package:

Spec URL: https://github.com/gvegidy/photivo-rpm/raw/master/CImg/CImg.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.egidy.de/fedora/CImg-1.5.1-1.fc17.src.rpm

# rpmlint CImg-1.5.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint CImg-devel-1.5.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint CImg.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Scratch builds ok:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4439538
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4439563
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4439565

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851

Matt Spaulding  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Matt Spaulding  ---
Ok, everything looks good to me.

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 853252] New: Review Request: datanommer - A storage consumer for the Fedora Message Bus (fedmsg)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853252

Bug ID: 853252
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: datanommer - A storage consumer for
the Fedora Message Bus (fedmsg)
Regression: ---
  Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
  Type: ---
 Documentation: ---
  Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
   Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: This is datanommer.  It is comprised of only a `fedmsg
`_ consumer that stuffs every message
in a sqlalchemy database.

There are also a handful of CLI tools to dump information from the
database.

Fedora Account System Username: ralph

rpmlint output
--
--- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS}/datanommer*
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/datanommer-0.1.3-1.fc17.*.rpm
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub,
git-hub, thuggish
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ralphbean -> Randolph
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlalchemy -> alchemy
datanommer.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedmsg -> feeding
datanommer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedmsg -> feeding
datanommer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
datanommer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub,
git-hub, thuggish
datanommer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ralphbean ->
Randolph
datanommer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlalchemy ->
alchemy
datanommer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-create-db
datanommer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-stats
datanommer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-dump
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub,
git-hub, thuggish
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ralphbean -> Randolph
datanommer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlalchemy -> alchemy
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.


koji - f17 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4439604
koji - el6 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4439602

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851

Marek Goldmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann  ---
Thanks for review!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name:  jacorb
Short Description: The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
Owners:goldmann
Branches:  f17 f18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 728302] Review Request: pjproject - Libraries written in C language for building embedded/non-embedded VoIP applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728302

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org
  Alias||pjproject

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823344] Review Request: rubygem-ohai - detects data about your system, exports as JSON for use with Chef

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823344

Bobby Powers  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bo...@laptop.org

--- Comment #7 from Bobby Powers  ---
ping! any updates on 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 852543] Review Request: Zlib-Ada - an Ada binding to Zlib

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543

--- Comment #2 from Björn Persson  ---
There should hopefully be a new release soon, which I assume will be numbered
1.4, but until then, here's a package with a snapshot of the CVS head.

https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/zlib-ada.spec
https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/zlib-ada-1.4-0.1.20120830CVS.fc17.src.rpm

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4439852

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823352] Review Request: rubygem-chef - a client for the Chef config management system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823352

Bobby Powers  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bo...@laptop.org

--- Comment #6 from Bobby Powers  ---
any updates? I'm interested in becoming a packager, if it would be helpful I'd
be interested in doing reviews of these packages.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: gentlyweb-utils
Short Description: Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
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 847385] Review Request: wmtictactoe - TicTacToe game as a dockapp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
wmtictactoe-1.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 804190] Review Request: sympol - Symmetric polyhedra tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804190

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-08-30 20:57:48

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
sympol-0.1.7-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 818943] Review Request: jtds - SQL Server and Sybase JDBC driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818943

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-08-30 20:58:18

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
jtds-1.2.6-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review