[Bug 853686] New: Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 Bug ID: 853686 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: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: lemen...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-bear.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A set of statistics functions for Erlang. Currently bear is focused on use inside the Folsom Erlang metrics library but all of these functions are generic and useful in other situations. Fedora Account System Username: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||849603 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853687] New: Review Request: erlang-folsom - Erlang-based metrics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853687 Bug ID: 853687 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: erlang-folsom - Erlang-based metrics system Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: lemen...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-folsom.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-folsom-0.7.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Folsom is an Erlang based metrics system inspired by Coda Hale's metrics. The metrics API's purpose is to collect realtime metrics from your Erlang applications and publish them via Erlang APIs and output plugins. Folsom is not a persistent store. There are 6 types of metrics: counters, gauges, histograms and timers, histories, meter_readers and meters. Metrics can be created, read and updated via the folsom_metrics module. Fedora Account System Username: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853687] Review Request: erlang-folsom - Erlang-based metrics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853687 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||849603 Depends On||853686 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||853687 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853689] New: Review Request: libmateui - Libraries for MATE Desktop UI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853689 Bug ID: 853689 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: libmateui - Libraries for MATE Desktop UI Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/libmateui.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/libmateui-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Libraries for MATE Desktop UI -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||853689 (libmateui) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853689] Review Request: libmateui - Libraries for MATE Desktop UI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853689 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840149 (MATE-DE-tracker) Alias||libmateui -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|844151 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844151] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - The daemon sharing settings from MATE to GTK+/KDE applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844151 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| Blocks|840149 (MATE-DE-tracker), | |849709 | |(mate-control-center) | Resolution|WONTFIX |NOTABUG Alias|mate-settings-daemon| 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 849709] Review Request: mate-control-center - Utilities to configure the Mate desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849709 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|844151 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] New: Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 Bug ID: 853692 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-settings-daemon.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-settings-daemon-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop settings daemon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||840149 (MATE-DE-tracker) Alias||mate-settings-daemon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||853692 ||(mate-settings-daemon) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] New: Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 Bug ID: 853694 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-control-center.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-control-center-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop control center -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849709] Review Request: mate-control-center - Utilities to configure the Mate desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849709 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|840149 (MATE-DE-tracker)| Depends On|844015 (mate-conf), 844150 | |(mate-desktop), 847712 | |(mate-menus)| Resolution|WONTFIX |NOTABUG Flags|needinfo- | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|849709 | |(mate-control-center) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844015] Review Request: mate-conf - A process-transparent configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844015 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|849709 | |(mate-control-center) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847712] Review Request: mate-menus - Displays menus for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847712 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|849709 | |(mate-control-center) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844150] Review Request: mate-desktop - Shared code among mate-panel, mate-session, caja, etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844150 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|849709 | |(mate-control-center) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849709] Review Request: mate-control-center - Utilities to configure the Mate desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849709 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|mate-control-center | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||853694 ||(mate-control-center) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840149 (MATE-DE-tracker) Alias||mate-control-center -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851975 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |libmatecomponentui -|libmatecomponentui - |Libraries for MATE Desktop |Libraries for MATE Desktop |ui |ui components -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849545] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes - Bayesian prediction of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849545 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- There is no license file shipped by the module, and not all file have a license, could you ask upstream about it ( ie, at least ship a license file, and maybe add a note about each file to avoid problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772986] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-fork - Globus Toolkit - Fork Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772986
Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com ---
A bit later than hoped, here's the output of running fedora review:
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.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Note: globus-gram-job-manager-fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-
job-manager-fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
fork-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-fork-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files -f package.filelist section. This
is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in
[Bug 772988] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-pbs - Globus Toolkit - PBS Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772988 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.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 772988] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-pbs - Globus Toolkit - PBS Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772988 --- Comment #4 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com --- I will review this package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
There is 2 issues :
1) package doesn't install, but i guess it does on rawhide or f18, so it is ok
for me.
There is no %check, despites having a test target in the makefile. Could you
check and add it to the spec ?
otherwise, this is approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: No description for test named CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 286720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not
[Bug 772988] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-pbs - Globus Toolkit - PBS Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772988
--- Comment #5 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com ---
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.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Note: globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm :
globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-
job-manager-pbs-setup-seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-
manager-pbs-debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
setup-seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-pbs-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
pbs-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files -f package.filelist section. This
is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache
[Bug 772989] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-sge - Globus Toolkit - Grid Engine Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772989 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com 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 772989] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-sge - Globus Toolkit - Grid Engine Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772989 --- Comment #4 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com --- I will review this package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772989] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-sge - Globus Toolkit - Grid Engine Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772989 Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.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 772989] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-sge - Globus Toolkit - Grid Engine Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772989
--- Comment #5 from Adam Huffman bl...@verdurin.com ---
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.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Note: globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm :
globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-
job-manager-sge-setup-poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-
manager-sge-debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
setup-poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
poll-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-
debuginfo-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-sge-setup-
seg-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : globus-gram-job-manager-
sge-1.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files -f package.filelist section. This
is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2
[Bug 849545] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes - Bayesian prediction of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849545
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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 for test named CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]:
[Bug 849579] Review Request: perl-Statistics-Contingency - Calculate precision, recall, F1, accuracy, etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849579
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 ---
Hi,
could you try to see if the signature could be checked ( cpansign -v , cf
Statistics-Contingency-0.08/SIGNATURE ), and add it to the spec ?
Also, there is no license file, so you should ask upstream to include it.
And there is a unowned directory.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: %{perl_vendorlib}/Statistics/ would be unowned
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: No description for test named CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires
[Bug 849618] Review Request: perl-AI-DecisionTree - Automatically Learns Decision Trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849618 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 --- The %doc is too wide : %doc Changes dist.ini eg Instance LICENSE README $ rpm -qpl results/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/AI/DecisionTree /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/AI/DecisionTree.pm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/AI/DecisionTree/Instance.pm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/AI/DecisionTree /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/AI/DecisionTree/Instance /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/AI/DecisionTree/Instance/Instance.so /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11 /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Changes /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/Instance.bs /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/Instance.c /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/Instance.o /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/Instance.pm /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/Instance.xs /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/Makefile /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/Makefile.PL /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/pm_to_blib /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/t /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/t/01-basic.t /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/t/02-leaktest.t /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/Instance/typemap /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/README /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/dist.ini /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/eg /usr/share/doc/perl-AI-DecisionTree-0.11/eg/example.pl /usr/share/man/man3/AI::DecisionTree.3pm.gz /usr/share/man/man3/AI::DecisionTree::Instance.3pm.gz I think instance should not be in %doc :) There is also various unonwed directory, that should be fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Ada
[x]: MUST Spec MUST be done with ExclusiveArch: %{GNAT_arches}
[x]: MUST All packages that contain Ada code MUST have BuildRequires: fedora-
gnat-project-common
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[-]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[-]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Remove %clean.
Use the _bindir and _includedir macro.
Including COPYING multiple times is not necessary. For instance, if devel
requires libs, including it in libs is enough.
Your Requires should use ?_isa, as of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
I'm not sure if that file should be where it is:
%{_libdir}/%{name}/bin/compare-dirs
Use the name macro in Source0.
Remove -n snapper-%{version} because it's the default.
Since this is no upstream release, the naming rules for snapshots apply:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release
Also state the exact command necessary to create the tarball.
Make %{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.*.gz ...%{name}.* or ...%{name}.8*.
Compression might change.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- (both the new specfile and srpm are at the same location) Please don't do that. Create a changelog entry and bump the release. This makes life easier for reviewers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840244] Review Request: surf-geometry - Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244
--- Comment #20 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #19)
You've still got one instance of %{buildroot} in %install, on the mkdir
line. Just fix that before you import the package into git. This package
is APPROVED.
Ops, sorry about another instance of %{buildroot}, I adapted it
from 4ti2.spec and for some reason 'got blind when looking before
my adaptations to the sed command. Will correct it before import.
Thanks 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 849618] Review Request: perl-AI-DecisionTree - Automatically Learns Decision Trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849618
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: No description for test named CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 16 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (AI-DecisionTree-0.11.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]:
[Bug 840244] Review Request: surf-geometry - Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244 pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: surf-geometry Short Description: Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry Owners: pcpa Branches: InitialCC: pcpa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853512] Review Request: rubygem-cloudfiles - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud Files service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853512 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||m...@zarb.org Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Last Closed||2012-09-02 09:29:57 --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Seems it already exist : https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/rubygem-cloudfiles So I close this bug as wontfix, but feel fee to reopen if I missed something. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853516] Review Request: rubygem-cloudservers - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud Servers service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853516 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||m...@zarb.org Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Last Closed||2012-09-02 09:31:52 --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Already exist : https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/rubygem-cloudservers You should ask for becoming comaintainer :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825347] Review Request: jersey - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825347 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|825349 | --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- - removed glassfish-el-impl references (RHBZ #825349) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825349] Review Request: glassfish-el-impl - Implementation of the Expression Language (EL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825349 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|825347 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #11 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Ok, I can take it.
Can you post newer srpm and spec with the various changes ( ease my work with
fedora review )?
So far, i found there is a unowned directory :
%{_datadir}/%{name}
And shouldn't it be started when X start, or this is done on demand by dbus,
with the proper X cookie being set ?
Also, could the description be improved, since I have no idea of what it does
exactly :/ ( I see it display message, but do not know what is dmenu )
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821094] Review Request: scamper - A network measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821094 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 821094] Review Request: scamper - A network measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821094 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.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 821094] Review Request: scamper - A network measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821094 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.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 821094] Review Request: scamper - A network measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821094 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.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 852543] Review Request: Zlib-Ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 --- Comment #6 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- Thanks for the review. Could you also set the fedora-review flag to +? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852543] Review Request: Zlib-Ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net --- Sorry. Fixed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #8 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- You can solve the installation problem by enabling updates-testing. There is a test target in the Makefile (I didn't notice it) but some tests fail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: emacs-evil Short Description: Extensible vi layer for Emacs Owners: wilqu 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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686
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 ---
No issues besides the timestamp one with install, but that's not blocking, so
package is approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[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 for test named CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is
[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 Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: zlib-ada Short Description: Zlib for Ada Owners: rombobeorn landgraf Branches: f18 f17 f16 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #10 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Tests failing should be discussed with upstream, i think either there is a compatibility issue, or the tests are wrong. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838344] Review Request: hokuyoaist - Hokuyo Laser SCIP driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838344 Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-02 14:14:21 --- Comment #13 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- Thanks, I've got packages built, closing now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825414] Review Request: flexiport - Flexible communications library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825414 Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-02 14:14:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Latest changes from upstream (mainly useful for packaging) - clean right on sources (avoid chmod in spec) - remove bundled igbinary (avoid hack in spec) https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/e38017592917389bb37102a80d988aaf0f7dbaf3 SRPM: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-redis-2.2.2-4.git6f7087f.remi.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 829126] Review Request: rosinstall - ROS installation utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829126 --- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- Updated to the latest upstream release, and also prepended python- to the package name to satisfy python package naming guidelines. Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rosinstall/python-rosinstall.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rosinstall/python-rosinstall-0.6.17-1.fc17.src.rpm $ rpmlint python-rosinstall.spec ../RPMS/noarch/python-rosinstall-0.6.19-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-rosinstall.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: rosinstall-0.6.19.tar.bz2 python-rosinstall.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rosws python-rosinstall.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rosco python-rosinstall.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary roslocate 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4445934 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829126] Review Request: rosinstall - ROS installation utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829126 Erik Schilling ablu.erikschill...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ablu.erikschilling@googlema ||il.com --- Comment #2 from Erik Schilling ablu.erikschill...@googlemail.com --- Correct SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rosinstall/python-rosinstall-0.6.19-1.fc17.src.rpm You forgot to adapt link above ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821094] Review Request: scamper - A network measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821094 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.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 853775] New: Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775 Bug ID: 853775 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SRPM URL: http://alexises.fedorapeople.org/gpick/gpick-0.2.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Spec URL: http://alexises.fedorapeople.org/gpick/gpick.spec BUILD KOJI: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4446314 Description: Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853784] New: Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853784 Bug ID: 853784 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ablu.erikschill...@googlemail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/tiled.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/tiled-0.8.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4446448 Fedora Account System Username: ablu Description: Tiled is a general purpose tile map editor. It's built to be easy to use, yet flexible enough to work with varying game engines, whether your game is an RPG, platformer or Breakout clone. Tiled is free software and written in C++, using the Qt application framework. I am not sponsered at the moment. I still need to work on getting sponsored ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853784] Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853784 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826483] Review Request: emacs-identica-mode - Identica mode for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 --- Comment #8 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 828789] Review Request: ghc-oeis - Interface to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828789 --- Comment #4 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 833356] Review Request: ghc-data-inttrie - A simple lazy, infinite trie from integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833356 --- Comment #4 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 840244] Review Request: surf-geometry - Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244 --- Comment #22 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #11 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 #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- SCM request and BZ package names don't match, please correct case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Summary|Review Request: Zlib-Ada - |Review Request: zlib-ada - |an Ada binding to Zlib |an Ada binding to Zlib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 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 851890] Review Request: mate-window-manager - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851890 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-02 20:47:20 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-window-manager-1.4.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851889] Review Request: libmate -- MATE Desktop base libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851889 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-02 20:47:47 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libmate-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 843695] Review Request: gecode - Generic constraint development environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843695 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-02 20:49:23 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gecode-3.7.3-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820115] Review Request: leptonica - C library for efficient image processing and image analysis operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820115 --- Comment #13 from Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #12) Hi, we need this to update tesseract-ocr to 3.01 else: checking for leptonica... configure: error: leptonica not found Mind doing the review for me? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840244] Review Request: surf-geometry - Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244 pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-09-02 21:22:53 --- Comment #23 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- The surf-geometry package has been built for rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852543] Review Request: zlib-ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 --- Comment #10 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 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||853692 ||(mate-settings-daemon) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||853694 ||(mate-control-center) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- qtractor-0.5.5-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qtractor-0.5.5-1.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 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- qtractor-0.5.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qtractor-0.5.5-1.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 849545] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes - Bayesian prediction of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849545
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
It's Fedora perl-modules' packaging convention to let perl-modules own all
directories below %{perl_vendorlib}.
This packages misses to own %{perl_vendorlib/Algorithm (MUSTFIX):
# rpm -qlvp
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes-0.04-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes-0.04
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1429 Jun 8 2007
/usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes-0.04/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4759 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/man/man3/Algorithm::NaiveBayes.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/NaiveBayes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8903 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/NaiveBayes.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/NaiveBayes/Model
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1560 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/NaiveBayes/Model/Discrete.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2338 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/NaiveBayes/Model/Frequency.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1720 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/NaiveBayes/Model/Gaussian.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 933 Sep 3 07:17
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/NaiveBayes/Util.pm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849579] Review Request: perl-Statistics-Contingency - Calculate precision, recall, F1, accuracy, etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849579
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
It's Fedora perl-modules' packaging convention to let perl-modules own all
directories below %{perl_vendorlib}.
This packages misses to own %{perl_vendorlib}/Statistics (MUSTFIX):
# rpm -qlvp
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/perl-Statistics-Contingency-0.08-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 3 07:25
/usr/share/doc/perl-Statistics-Contingency-0.08
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1963 Aug 24 2008
/usr/share/doc/perl-Statistics-Contingency-0.08/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8534 Aug 24 2008
/usr/share/doc/perl-Statistics-Contingency-0.08/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4592 Sep 3 07:25
/usr/share/man/man3/Statistics::Contingency.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot12994 Sep 3 07:25
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Statistics/Contingency.pm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850679] Review Request: rubygem-pdf-reader - Ruby library to parse PDF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850679 --- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- Addressed. Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-pdf-reader/rubygem-pdf-reader.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-pdf-reader/rubygem-pdf-reader-1.1.1-5.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
