[Bug 849455] Review Request: geary - A lightweight email program designed around conversations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849455 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-09-01 02:45:15 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de --- Imported and built for rawhide. Cannot build for F18 until vala 0.17.4 is pushed to stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812587] Review Request: perl-FusionInventory-Agent-Task-Deploy - Software deployment support for FusionInventory Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812587 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-09-01 03:02:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851746] Review Request: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Thanks again, Mario. I just learned how to use help2man, so that might be a good candidate here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851746] Review Request: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bitlyclip Short Description: Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly Owners: ralph Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853463] Review Request: php-redis - Extension for communicating with the Redis key-value store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853463 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Minor change: run test suite only is redis 2.4 available https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/ce9341e4e4f5610291fa2a25025ea78d9db447b3 SRPM: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-redis-2.2.2-3.git5df5153.remi.src.rpm EPEL-5 not targeted (redis requires igbinary which requires php 5.2) but I want to keep old packaging stuff (buildroot, clean, ...) to make backports possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852851] Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc17,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc17,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc17,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc17,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc17,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc17,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.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 805015] Review Request: jboss-jts - Distributed Transaction Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805015 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc17,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc17,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc17,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc17,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc17,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc17,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.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 852851] Review Request: jacorb - The Java implementation of the OMG's CORBA standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc18,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc18,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc18,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc18,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc18,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc18,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.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 805015] Review Request: jboss-jts - Distributed Transaction Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805015 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc18,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc18,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc18,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-5.fc18,jboss-jts-4.16.2-8.fc18,jacorb-2.3.1-3.20120215git.fc18,jboss-as-7.1.1-8.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 852330] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852330 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- This package should be renamed to hibernate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844155] Review Request: mate-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844155 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-keyring-1.4.0-8.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-keyring-1.4.0-8.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 844155] Review Request: mate-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844155 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.mas...@gmail.com Resolution|WONTFIX |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 846794] Review Request: libmateui - MATE base GUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846794 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846794] Review Request: libmateui - MATE base GUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846794 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|libmateui | Flags|fedora-review? | 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 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 Martin Preisler mprei...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mprei...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mprei...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Martin Preisler mprei...@redhat.com --- Hi, I am taking this package for review. I think it's in a pretty good condition after suggestions from everybody in this bugzilla. There is a new release out on upstream's website. It probably would be worth it to update the spec to it. It concerns me a bit that bugfixes in glm will require rebuilds of everything that uses it to propagate. But there clearly is nothing we can do about that. Upstream puts a lot of binary files into the release zip file including doc/build folder which has Win32 binaries. It would be awesome if you could convince the upstream that this shouldn't be in the release file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510
Martin Preisler mprei...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Martin Preisler mprei...@redhat.com ---
Although upstream puts binary dlls and one exe into the zip archive they are
not installed so I think it's not an issue except it bloats the lookaside
cache.
I think that including the two zero length files is OK, I would suggest that
upstream puts a comment in there saying that they are // empty for now or
something to avoid any future confusion.
Regarding
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';'
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name CMakeLists.txt -exec rm -f {} ';'
The first should be an option in the cmake file, the second is clearly a
mistake and upstream should be notified.
Nice to haves but unimportant:
[!]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass
(EDIT: The latter is actually correct and I just missed it in the .spec file,
sorry!)
MD5-sum check
-
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ogl-math/glm-0.9.3.2/glm-0.9.3.2.zip :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ee66ab8336b9b6b3dff69268c497688268cf5a9d2b3a14e1aa6fbd7f48c911be
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ee66ab8336b9b6b3dff69268c497688268cf5a9d2b3a14e1aa6fbd7f48c911be
Approved, full review here: http://pastebin.com/yR4Sjz9Z
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853463] Review Request: php-redis - Extension for communicating with the Redis key-value store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853463 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- EPEL-6 koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4443754 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852330] Review Request: hibernate - Relational persistence and query service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852330 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: hibernate4 |Review Request: hibernate - |- Relational persistence|Relational persistence and |and query service |query service --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate-4.1.6-1.fc16.src.rpm - renamed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 --- Comment #13 from Joonas Sarajärvi m...@iki.fi --- Thank you for reviewing the package. I have taken a look at the two more recent upstream releases, but currently they have a failing test case which I would prefer to look into before pushing a new release. The problem does not look very significant, since it only seems to concern integer operations and glm is likely usually used for floating point computations. It may also be the case that the bug is actually in the test code and not glm itself, but I have not yet figured out which participant of the test case is the faulty one. I will try to communicate issues raised in this bug upstream. I can also try to look at the failing test more myself, in hopes of fixing the issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853493] Review Request: gcal - The GNU Gregorian calendar program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853493
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
A few issues :
- there seems to be small part of glibc embedded into lib/
for example lib/regex.c. that's not good and IMHO, should be discussed
with upstream ( and I count that as blocker, for the non bundled library
policy )
- code is using gnulib, lack a bundled(gnulib). This is a exception
to the policy, but I am not sure everything in lib is part of gnulib.
- code seems to be under gplv3 or later, so the license tag is
wrong, and doc is under FDL, so should be reflected in license tag as
well.
- there is still stuff that are not needed unless on EPEL5, and i think it
is usually cleaner to remove them.
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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files -f %{name}.lang 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL, GPL (v3 or later) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/853493-gcal/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 --- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- (In reply to comment #12) Approved, full review here: http://pastebin.com/yR4Sjz9Z This pretty much goes against all guidelines. Bugzilla exists for the reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 --- Comment #15 from Martin Preisler mprei...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #12) Approved, full review here: http://pastebin.com/yR4Sjz9Z This pretty much goes against all guidelines. Bugzilla exists for the reviews. I only included fedora-review output for completeness. All points it raises are in the bugzilla. I don't think pasting the entire output here is of any value. If you feel otherwise, feel free to copy paste it in there. I would appreciate it if you could point the guideline that I crossed with this. 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 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 --- Comment #16 from Martin Preisler mprei...@redhat.com --- One more thing that I forgot to mention. If upstream doesn't remove the doc/build folder you should remove it in %prep, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853493] Review Request: gcal - The GNU Gregorian calendar program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853493 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review- Last Closed||2012-09-01 10:10:45 --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Mhh, already in Fedora : https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gcal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828789] Review Request: ghc-oeis - Interface to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828789 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com 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 833356] Review Request: ghc-data-inttrie - A simple lazy, infinite trie from integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833356
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
ghc-data-inttrie.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) trie - tire, true, tie
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trie - tire,
true, tie
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg - eh, e, g
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foldr - fold,
folder, folds
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) trie - tire, true,
tie
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trie - tire,
true, tie
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg - eh, e, g
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foldr - fold,
folder, folds
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-data-inttrie-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) trie - tire,
true, tie
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trie -
tire, true, tie
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -
eh, e, g
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-inttrie-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foldr -
fold, folder, folds
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, BSD
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
The package has only one source file which mentions the license to be BSD. Also
.cabal file's license field is BSD.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is not included. Packager has requested upstream to include it
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
sha256sum data-inttrie-0.0.7.tar.gz
37828f696c966ad4b6b7f533bb348e77b5dcbdf9e9c69973bc68c82bae41a5a5
data-inttrie-0.0.7.tar.gz
sha256sum ghc-data-inttrie-0.0.7-1.fc16.src/data-inttrie-0.0.7.tar.gz
37828f696c966ad4b6b7f533bb348e77b5dcbdf9e9c69973bc68c82bae41a5a5
ghc-data-inttrie-0.0.7-1.fc16.src/data-inttrie-0.0.7.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built 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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 --- Comment #17 from Joonas Sarajärvi m...@iki.fi --- Version 0.9.3.2-2 removes the doc/build directory in %prep. Spec URL: http://muep.fedorapeople.org/glm/glm.spec SRPM URL: http://muep.fedorapeople.org/glm/glm-0.9.3.2-2.fc16.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 --- Comment #18 from Joonas Sarajärvi m...@iki.fi --- Doh, should have copy-pasted the URL from the correct place.. SRPM URL: http://muep.fedorapeople.org/glm/glm-0.9.3.2-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 Joonas Sarajärvi m...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Joonas Sarajärvi m...@iki.fi --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: glm Short Description: C++ mathematics library for graphics programming Owners: muep Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853493] Review Request: gcal - The GNU Gregorian calendar program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853493 --- Comment #3 from Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org --- Wait, really? I swear I checked. That's what I get for doing things in the middle of the conference. Sorry about that!!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851746] Review Request: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852543] Review Request: Zlib-Ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net --- Devel and debuginfo packages contain executable *.adb in _docdir and debug folders readme.txt from main package contains also executable. I think you should remove executable bit from sources -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847457] Review Request: rubygem-transaction-simple - Simple object transaction support for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847457 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-transaction-simple-1.4.0.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787510] Review Request: glm - C++ mathematics library for graphics programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787510 Joonas Sarajärvi m...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-09-01 13:39:21 --- Comment #21 from Joonas Sarajärvi m...@iki.fi --- Package has been built for Rawhide and Fedora 17 and Fedora 18. I intend to post this into updates of F17 and F18 after spending some more effort in the gtx_integer test failure. Thanks to everyone involved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828789] Review Request: ghc-oeis - Interface to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828789
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i *.rpm ../ghc-oeis.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - Not OK, requires better summary and
description
API documentation - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
sha256sum oeis-0.3.1.tar.gz
829308a22e330bef8e39a8fa88776488eba6213b1bd90cf70168811f5611ba4f
oeis-0.3.1.tar.gz
sha256sum ghc-oeis-0.3.1-1.fc16.src/oeis-0.3.1.tar.gz
829308a22e330bef8e39a8fa88776488eba6213b1bd90cf70168811f5611ba4f
ghc-oeis-0.3.1-1.fc16.src/oeis-0.3.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built 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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
Installed the packages. Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
pm -e ghc-oeis
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(oeis-0.3.1) = cb2a9dd055fa16e38a914bfb2adc859b is needed by (installed)
ghc-oeis-devel-0.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-oeis = 0.3.1-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-oeis-devel-0.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[-]SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Loaded Math.OEIS into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
cabal2spec-diff
[Bug 837988] Review Request: python-alembic - A database migration tool for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837988 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-01 14:12:17 --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Fedora updates are in testing - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-alembic el6 still needs the latest python-sqlalchemy to make it to stable (or a buildroot override). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853493] Review Request: gcal - The GNU Gregorian calendar program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853493 --- Comment #4 from Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org --- My package has a few things that that one is missing, so I'll get my fixes merged. Thanks again for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852543] Review Request: Zlib-Ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #4 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- (In reply to comment #3) Devel and debuginfo packages contain executable *.adb in _docdir and debug folders readme.txt from main package contains also executable. I think you should remove executable bit from sources Good catch. I thought RPMbuild would take care of the file permissions but apparently it removes executable bits only in some directories. Fixed. https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/zlib-ada.spec https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/zlib-ada-1.4-0.2.20120830CVS.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781823] Review Request: easyplay - An easy to use categories- and playlists-based music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781823
--- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
All Python scripts in %{python_sitelib} don't need neither a shebang nor to be
executable. You will have to patch them and inform upstream people about this
problem.
There remains the following issue:
easyplay.src: E: specfile-error sh: line 0: fg: no job control
This error occurred when rpmlint used rpm to query the specfile. The error is
output by rpm and the message should contain more information.
#!/bin/sh
python3 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/easyplay/easyplay
Is it really intended that Python v3 has to run a script which resides in the
Python2 module folder? The python3-libs package creates a folder
/usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/ or /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/...
...
Stop - just found the possible solution. You have used the macro
%{python_sitelib}, but for Pathon3 packages it has to be %{python3_sitelib}.
This could cause the issue with running a script in the old Python2 folder
with Python3. Just test it again.
Maybe you can omit the runtime script in /usr/bin. I propose to patch a shebang
(#!/usr/bin/env python3) into %{python3_sitelib}/easyplay/easyplay and link it
to /usr/bin. This could avoid even more trouble.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851975] Review Request: libmatecomponentui - Libraries for MATE Desktop ui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851975 --- Comment #1 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Updated spec files, koji build is running successfully now. Ready for review. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=796 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853493] Review Request: gcal - The GNU Gregorian calendar program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853493 --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- No problem, this gave me the idea for one more check for fedora-review, and i didn't check either in fact before doing the review ( in fact, i only noticed becure packagekit offered me to update it ). However, the issue of shipping part of the glibc in lib is still true, could you investigate if that's related to gnulib or not ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853493] Review Request: gcal - The GNU Gregorian calendar program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853493 --- Comment #6 from Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org --- Yeah, I'll take a look. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850469] Review Request: rubygem-Ascii85 - Methods to encode/decode Adobe's binary-to-text encoding of the same name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850469 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-01 20:24:40 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-Ascii85-1.0.1-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844164] Review Request: mate-vfs - The MATE virtual file-system libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |ERRATA --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-vfs-1.4.0-10.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-01 20:25:47 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841766] Review Request: erlang-riak_search - Full-text search engine based on Riak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841766 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-riak_search-1.1.4-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844155] Review Request: mate-keyring - Framework for managing passwords and other secrets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844155 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-keyring-1.4.0-8.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 845643] Review Request: katello-agent - The Katello Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845643 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- katello-agent-1.1.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847419] Review request: mate-polkit - Integrates polkit with the MATE Desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847419 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-01 20:28:23 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-polkit-1.4.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850469] Review Request: rubygem-Ascii85 - Methods to encode/decode Adobe's binary-to-text encoding of the same name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850469 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-Ascii85-1.0.1-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-01 20:28:50 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828789] Review Request: ghc-oeis - Interface to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828789 Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-oeis Short Description: A oeis library for Haskell Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: haskell-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 833356] Review Request: ghc-data-inttrie - A simple lazy, infinite trie from integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833356 Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-data-inttrie Short Description: A simple lazy, infinite trie from integers Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: haskell-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 826483] Review Request: emacs-identica-mode - Identica mode for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me ---
You don't need rm -rf %{buildroo(In reply to comment #5)
I installed emacs-bbdb-2.35-5.fc15 on Fedora 16 (x86_64), but, it doesn't
have bbdb-mua which is required by bbdb-identica.el. So, I am not packaging
the two *.el files for now.
Ah, OK. Just turn it on at your own discretion when they are useful -- perhaps
file a bug against emacs-bbdb to ask for bbdb-mua to be included?
I have updated the latest tarball to use identica-mode-1.2.1.tar.gz sources.
Thanks
[!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed
with good reason
File sections already has the %defattr values.
That's the point -- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is the default, so you don't need
to explicitly mention it
[!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
Semi-automatic - print warning for EPEL
I already have a %clean section that has rm -rf %{buildroot}. What warning
is
required for EPEL?
The %clean section is fine. But at the beginning of %install, you don't need to
also clean the buildroot, *unless* you're targeting RHEL 5.
These are minor issues though -- the defattr and cleaning buildroot in %install
are just to tidy up the spec and removing redundant details. So you can do the
fix-up when importing the package.
Sorry for the delay, I really haven't found enough time to work on Fedora
recently :(
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 829676] Review Request: pyelftools - Pure-Python library for parsing and analyzing ELF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829676 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(kushaldas@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Ping - Kushal? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826483] Review Request: emacs-identica-mode - Identica mode for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. I'll update the .spec file accordingly before import. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: emacs-identica-mode Short Description: Identica mode for Emacs Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: shakthimaan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #33 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com --- Upstream latest version 0.8.8. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
