[Bug 826483] Review Request: emacs-identica-mode - Identica mode for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |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 826483] Review Request: emacs-identica-mode - Identica mode for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-identica-mode-1.2.1-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-identica-mode-1.2.1-3.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 826483] Review Request: emacs-identica-mode - Identica mode for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-identica-mode-1.2.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-identica-mode-1.2.1-3.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 826483] Review Request: emacs-identica-mode - Identica mode for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-identica-mode-1.2.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-identica-mode-1.2.1-3.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 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 Cheryn Tan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||853856 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 Cheryn Tan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||853859 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852543] Review Request: zlib-ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- zlib-ada-1.4-0.3.20120830CVS.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zlib-ada-1.4-0.3.20120830CVS.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 852543] Review Request: zlib-ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- zlib-ada-1.4-0.3.20120830CVS.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zlib-ada-1.4-0.3.20120830CVS.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 852543] Review Request: zlib-ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- zlib-ada-1.4-0.3.20120830CVS.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zlib-ada-1.4-0.3.20120830CVS.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 851890] Review Request: mate-window-manager - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851890 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- mate-window-manager-1.4.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-window-manager-1.4.1-1.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 851890] Review Request: mate-window-manager - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851890 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- mate-window-manager-1.4.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-window-manager-1.4.1-1.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 852326] Review Request: powerpc-utils-python - python utilities for PowerPC systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852326 Lukáš Nykrýn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-09-03 04:46:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 --- Comment #17 from Thomas Sailer --- mpfr is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Gerd v. Egidy changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #6 from Gerd v. Egidy --- Ralf kindly agreed to sponsor me, so no sponsor needed anymore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking ---
Here are a couple of initial notes:
- Add a short comment above the License field explaining why we have a
multiple licensing scenario here (tiled/libtiled binary: GPLv2+, tmxviewer:
BSD).
- Since the package doesn't provide tiled only but also tmxviewer, you should
add this information to the %description (and add a final period to the
sentence).
- As there are no development files (headers etc.) installed, you probably
don't need to provide libtiled.so either. So I recommend to remove the file
and drop the devel package.
- The tarball contains a copy of zlib (src/zlib). Remove this folder in %prep
and ensure that Fedora's zlib is linked.
- The locale files must be installed using %find_lang:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
Thus, add "%find_lang %{name} --with-qt" to the %install section, and append
"-f %{name}.lang" to %files. Also, in the %files section, replace
%{_datadir}/tiled with %{_datadir}/tiled/images/ and add the following lines
for proper directory ownership:
%dir %{_datadir}/tiled/
%dir %{_datadir}/tiled/translations
- Always try to avoid plain asterisks in the %files section. Instead it's much
better to be more specific in order to avoid adding unexpected files to the
package:
%{_bindir}/tiled
%{_bindir}/tmxviewer
%{_mandir}/man1/tiled.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/tmxviewer.1*
- Replace %{_libdir}/libtiled.so.1* with %{_libdir}/libtiled.so.* to simplify
future updates.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de Depends On||833622 (mingw-gmp) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||851810 (mingw-mpfr) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 --- Comment #30 from Michal Minar --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-4.p1.fc16.src.rpm IBPP team is considering relicensing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853922] New: Review Request: guacamole - The main Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853922 Bug ID: 853922 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: guacamole - The main Guacamole web application Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: negativ...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-0.6.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Guacamole is an HTML5 web application that provides access to desktop environments using remote desktop protocols such as VNC or RDP. A centralized server acts as a tunnel and proxy, allowing access to multiple desktops through a web browser. No plugins are needed: the client requires nothing more than a web browser supporting HTML5 and AJAX. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837050] Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050 Jan Synacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsyna...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsyna...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835015] Review Request: xmonad-log-applet - Panel applet to display Xmonad log information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835015
--- Comment #7 from Dan Callaghan ---
Thanks for taking this review, Mario.
(In reply to comment #6)
> There are still some problems:
>
> All entries in %doc and the png file appear in both packages. This will
> cause a package conflict if someone tries to install both. My proposal: Put
> the mentioned files in the base package (which actually doesn't exist yet)
> and don't forget to let it be required by both subpackages.
Actually there is no conflict if the files are identical, which they always
will be since they are built from the same sources. yum/rpm will happily
install them both at the same time. I'd rather avoid having a base package if
possible, since it makes things messier.
Though for a clean upgrade path, I should add an explicit Conflicts for <
%{version}%{release}, so that yum knows to upgrade both at the same time (if
both are installed). I have added that in -3.
> The -gnome package pulls only libpanel-applet-4.so.0 as a dependency, means
> that the folder %{_datadir}/gnome-panel/4.0/applets/ needs to be owned. Add
> gnome-panel manually, which solves this problem. The same in the -xfce
> package, which needs xfce4-panel as a runtime requirement.
Good point. Fixed in -3.
> After all,
> shouldn't be Xmonad to be added as a dependency to the main package?
I don't think so... There is no hard requirement for xmonad to be present for
the package to work, and the user might be doing something unusual like sending
their xmonad log messages over D-Bus over the network, or even just running
their own custom xmonad from their home directory or something like that. So
I'd rather not Require xmonad when it's not needed.
> Maybe we need a way to force the user to don't install the base package
> only, which wouldn't make sense. Either -gnome or -xfce should be needed. My
> idea: Add a "Provides: xmonad-log-applet-foo" to both packages and vice
> versa a "Requires: xmonad-log-applet-foo" to the main package. But I don't
> know if Yum can solve this correctly. I assume that the user will be asked
> for installing each of the packages.
This is the kind of problem we can avoid if there is no base package :-)
Updated SRPM/spec:
http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/xmonad-log-applet/xmonad-log-applet-2.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm
http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/xmonad-log-applet/xmonad-log-applet.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853922] Review Request: guacamole - The main Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853922 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni --- This is my first Java Web Application package, so a few notes on this from what I evicted from the various packaging guidelines: * guacamole-common-js has been removed as a build dependency: According to the guidelines, javascript need to be left as they are in exploded format on the filesystem, so they are not used during build but only linked into the app like normal jar files. * tomcat dependency To enable the app, the link to /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole needs to be available in the tomcat webapps directory. I've put the generic tomcat name (so version 7) as requirement, but it works fine as well in tomcat6. What's the standard here? Don't ship the link so the user needs to enable it by hand, ship it for all tomcat versions, ship just for the generic one?... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaWebApps https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaScript https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837050] Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050 Jan Synacek 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 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810 --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius --- * Similar remark as for mingw-gmp: I do not see any need to let the package BR: the autotools. Please remove these. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837050] Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050
Jan Synacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #1 from Jan Synacek ---
Issues:
[!]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Note: nacl-devel-20110221-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/libnacl.a
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
[!]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
diff).
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
--- /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/nacl.spec2012-09-03 12:39:55.432557126
+0200
+++ /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/nacl/srpm-unpacked/nacl.spec2012-09-03
12:42:23.269591873 +0200
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
Name: nacl
-# http://nacl.cr.yp.to/
-URL:http://nacl.cace-project.eu/
+URL:http://nacl.cr.yp.to/
Version:20110221
Release:1%{?dist}
Requires
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822926] Review Request: katello-cli - client package for Katello
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 Lukas Zapletal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Lukas Zapletal --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: katello-cli Short Description: Client package for Katello Owners: lzap msuchy Branches: f16 f17 el6 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 852914] python-rackspace-monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky --- Note that fedora-review currently has basically no tests for Python guidelines and I would recommend being cautious about results for python packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 --- Comment #12 from Lukas Zapletal --- Changes made: https://github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/commit/663c81793a2c8dde06e577044c83ca742fa0a4d1 Links: https://github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/raw/master/dunst.spec http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7917/4447917/dunst-0.3.1-3.fc17.src.rpm I don't thing we want to start it by default, but what could we do is to add it in the afterstart gnome menu (disabled by default). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822926] Review Request: katello-cli - client package for Katello
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #11 from Lukas Zapletal --- Adding f18 as well: New Package SCM Request === Package Name: katello-cli Short Description: Client package for Katello Owners: lzap msuchy Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 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 #12 from Sébastien Willmann --- Wrote to upstream mailing list about the tests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852914] python-rackspace-monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914 --- Comment #3 from Luis Bazan --- I'm already making changes at night I'm sending all corrected. Regards! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837050] Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050
Jaroslav Škarvada changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Issues:
> [!]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
> Note: nacl-devel-20110221-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/libnacl.a
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
>
Probably OK, from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries:
...
There are two scenarios in which static libraries are packaged:
...
2. Static libraries only. When a package only provides static libraries you can
place all the static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this
you also must have a virtual Provide for the *-static package:
%package devel
Provides: foo-static = %{version}-%{release}
Packages which explicitly need to link against the static version must
BuildRequire: foo-static, so that the usage can be tracked.
So probably false positive/bug of fedora-review tool.
> [!]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
> diff).
>
>
> Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
> -
> --- /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/nacl.spec 2012-09-03 12:39:55.432557126
> +0200
> +++ /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/nacl/srpm-unpacked/nacl.spec 2012-09-03
> 12:42:23.269591873 +0200
> @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
> Name: nacl
> -# http://nacl.cr.yp.to/
> -URL:http://nacl.cace-project.eu/
> +URL:http://nacl.cr.yp.to/
> Version:20110221
> Release:1%{?dist}
> Requires
>
I fine tuned the spec URL to credit the cace-project but forget to refresh the
SRPM :) It should be fixed now (I fixed it without release bump).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-09-03 09:26:56 --- Comment #13 from Sébastien Willmann --- Built successfully for all branches. I'll wait for upstream's answer before submitting updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378
--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[-]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any-1.110690.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any-1.110690-1.fc16.src.rpm
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378 --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova --- You can use cpanspec to generate a spec file for a CPAN module. The created spec file will contains valid URL, group, correct setup option, check section and EPEL5 stuff. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- nqp-0.0.2012.08.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nqp-0.0.2012.08.1-1.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 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378 --- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni --- Woah. So many errors. Thanks for your review. I didn't know about cpanspec, I regenerated the spec file with it and added the changes regarding the errors you pointed out. I left the EPEL 5 stuff in and I will ask the perl-Log-Dispatch mantainer if the latest Log::Dispatch can also be built for EPEL 5. It if it's not, I will not push anything to the el5 branch. $ rpmlint perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. These are the things I've not fixed yet: * Missing BuildRequires: perl(base) Is this really needed? cpanspec does not add it and is pulled in by other modules. * Optional BuildRequires for tests: perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.14 and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.04 Should I add those? They are both in EPEL but cpanspec does not have added them. Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any-1.110690-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853379] Review Request: perl-Net-CLI-Interact - Toolkit for CLI Automation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853379 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni --- Regenerated spec file with cpanspec: Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-CLI-Interact.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-CLI-Interact-1.122100-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853922] Review Request: guacamole - The main Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853922
Stanislav Ochotnicky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||socho...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky ---
I don't quite understand why there's double name macro:
%{_datadir}/webapps/%{name}/%{name}/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853922] Review Request: guacamole - The main Guacamole web application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853922
--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni ---
It's in the "Server Independent Part" [1]:
"According to existing practice, the web application data should be placed to
%{_datadir}. The package can contain more than a single web application -- it
can contain a GUI or CLI application, either of them possibly using
%{_datadir}/%{name}, or multiple web applications. A web application is
possibly named differently from the package. Therefore use of
%{_datadir}/%{_name} should be avoided.
A suitable name, what would prevent all sorts of naming conflicts would be
%{_datadir}/webapps/%{name}/foo. Note that the name webapps was chosen after
existing naming practice of Tomcat. foo stands for name of the web application
archive stripped of .war suffix, since it's no longer an archive."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaWebApps#Server_independent_part
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853380] Review Request: perl-Net-Appliance-Session - Run command-line sessions to network appliances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853380 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni --- Regenerated spec file with cpanspec: Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-Appliance-Session.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Net-Appliance-Session-3.122100-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378 --- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova --- cpanspec add only dependencies mentioned in META.*, there could miss some dependencies. For finding the requirement, I am going though the content of the source tarball. I am looking for modules which are loaded by 'use' or 'require' for tests and also module from lib/ which are used for the tests. I add to BR each modules which could be packed separately from CPAN (http://search.cpan.org/~rgarcia/base-2.18/). The optional BRs are not necessary, the tests will pass without them. You don't have to add them. It's up to you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378 --- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni --- Thanks for the explanation! Here is the updated one with added perl-Test-Pod* requirements for tests. I've left perl(base) out. Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any-1.110690-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839649] Review Request: rubygem-rails_best_practices - a code metric tool for rails codes, written in Ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839649 --- Comment #2 from Maros Zatko --- Thanks for your review, I've updated spec, so Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rails_best_practices.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-rails_best_practices-1.10.1-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: a code metric tool for rails codes, written in Ruby. Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839650] Review Request: rubygem-awesome_print - Pretty print Ruby objects with proper indentation and colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650 --- Comment #2 from Maros Zatko --- Thanks for your review, I've updated spec, so Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/awesome_print.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-awesome_print-1.0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Great Ruby dubugging companion: pretty print Ruby objects to visualize their structure. Supports custom object formatting via plugins Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839652] Review Request: rubygem-colored - Add some color to your life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839652 --- Comment #2 from Maros Zatko --- Thanks for your review, I've updated spec, so Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/colored.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-colored-1.2-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: >> puts "this is red".red >> puts "this is red with a blue background (read: ugly)".red_on_blue >> puts "this is red with an underline".red.underline >> puts "this is really bold and really blue".bold.blue >> logger.debug "hey this is broken!".red_on_yellow # in rails >> puts Color.red "This is red" # but this part is mostly untested Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839653] Review Request: rubygem-slim - Slim is a template language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839653 --- Comment #3 from Maros Zatko --- Thank you for review, there is a updated spec & srpm Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/slim.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-slim-1.2.2-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Slim is a template language whose goal is reduce the syntax to the essential parts without becoming cryptic. Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839654] Review Request: rubygem-temple - Template compilation framework in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839654 --- Comment #2 from Maros Zatko --- Thank you for review, there is a updated spec & srpm Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/temple.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~hexo/rpm/rubygem-temple-0.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Template compilation framework in Ruby Fedora Account System Username: mzatko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378 --- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni --- No, it cannot be built on EPEL 5. As you pointed out it depends on Log::Dispatcher 2.23; which in turn depends on Log::Syslog 0.16 which is provided by perl itself but in later revisions so I cannot ask for a build on the el5 branch. I've stripped out EPEL 5 stuff from this and the dependent packages: Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any-1.110690-4.fc17.src.rpm Thanks, --Simone -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #2 from Erik Schilling --- Thanks for notes Ok i dropped the devel package though i will need to reintroduce it for the next release because it will contain the currently missing headers. Updated the SPEC (same link): https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/tiled.spec New SRPM: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/tiled-0.8.1-2.fc17.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4448480 regards Erik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852892] Review Request: ddccontrol-db - DDC/CI control database for ddccontrol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for the review. > [!]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached > diff). > > I suppose the specfile outside the SRPM is more recent. Please, confirm. > Correct, I just forget to refresh the SRPM :), fixed without version bump. > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > spec file states GPL+, included COPYING file is GPLv2 > I guess it is OK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F But I will ask upstream to clarify their intention. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378
--- Comment #7 from Jitka Plesnikova ---
There is missing following Requires.
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version))
Each perl module have to have it. It defined the version of perl which was used
for build. The version should be installed in the system.
rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any-1.110690-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
| uniq -c
2 perl(Carp)
1 perl(Config::Any)
1 perl(Config::Any) >= 0.15
1 perl(Log::Dispatch) >= 2.23
2 perl(Log::Dispatch::Configurator)
1 perl(base)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(warnings)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
perl(Carp), perl(Log::Dispatch::Configurator) don't need to be mention in
Requires.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Sailer --- Well spotted, thanks. Removed autotools BR; but didn't bump the release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852892] Review Request: ddccontrol-db - DDC/CI control database for ddccontrol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892 --- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- Upstream contacted, waiting for their reply. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853378] Review Request: perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any - Configurator implementation with Config::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853378 --- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni --- Updated; added perl module compat, removed Carp and Log::Dispatch::Configurator from Requires: Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/perl-Log-Dispatch-Configurator-Any-1.110690-5.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
[Bug 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810 --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to comment #2) > Well spotted, thanks. > > Removed autotools BR; but didn't bump the release. ?!? Please provide a new spec and a new src.rpm (with release bumped). http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpfr.spec still BR's the autotools. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852914] python-rackspace-monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914 --- Comment #4 from Sebastian Dyroff --- (In reply to comment #2) > Note that fedora-review currently has basically no tests for Python > guidelines and I would recommend being cautious about results for python > packages Is there a checklist like the one fedora-review generates, that helps reviewing python packages? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer ---
Are you sure it's not some caching issue on your side? When I download the spec
url, there's only 6 BRs: mingw{32,64}-{filesystem,gcc,gmp}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember ---
Hi,
I have some random drive-by comments. All of these are just a matter of
personal preference; feel free to do how you prefer.
> Group: Development/Libraries
None of the tools in Fedora make use of the Group tag; besides, in this spec
file, it's currently only specified for the SRPM and not for the binary RPMs.
I'd suggest removing it.
> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
RPM has a sane default for BuildRoot. Defining it in the spec file is mostly
only useful EPEL release with ancient rpm version.
> %package -n mingw32-%{mingw_pkg_name}
Maybe use something shorter, like %{name1} as you've used in other spec files?
Long %{mingw_pkg_name} all over the place makes the spec file quite hard to
read.
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
The rm line isn't needed with the rpm macros in Fedora; again only useful for
EPEL.
> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Same also applies to the whole %clean section; not needed in Fedora with the
version of rpm there.
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
This is now the default with the rpm versions in Fedora; no need to keep the
line if you are only building for Fedora and not EPEL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember --- Oh and I guess the following can also be deleted, as you are removing all the documentation down below? > iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 doc/mpfr.info > doc/mpfr.info.aux > mv doc/mpfr.info.aux doc/mpfr.info -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851746] Review Request: bitlyclip - Shorten urls in the X clipboard with bit.ly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-03 13:11:14 --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean --- Updates -> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bitlyclip -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851810] Review Request: mingw-mpfr - MinGW C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851810 --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to comment #4) > Are you sure it's not some caching issue on your side? No, I am not - The version I downloaded 1/2 hour ago still carried the autotools, the version, I downloaded 5 mins ago does not carry the autotools. That's a situation, which demonstrated, why not bumping the release numbers is not necessarily a clever idea - We will never know what might have happened ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-identica-mode-1.2.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852543] Review Request: zlib-ada - an Ada binding to Zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852543 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- zlib-ada-1.4-0.3.20120830CVS.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 828789] Review Request: ghc-oeis - Interface to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828789 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-oeis-0.3.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- Package qtractor-0.5.5-1.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing qtractor-0.5.5-1.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-13206/qtractor-0.5.5-1.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-data-inttrie-0.0.7-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822926] Review Request: katello-cli - client package for Katello
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847501] Review Request: readosm - Library to extract data from Open Streetmap input files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847501 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- readosm-1.0.0a-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Michael Cronenworth --- Thanks, Ralf. I will have F18+ mingw-gmp be based on 5.0.5. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-gmp Short Description: Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library Owners: mooninite Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853784] Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853784 --- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking --- (In reply to comment #2) > Ok i dropped the devel package though i will need to reintroduce it for the > next release because it will contain the currently missing headers. OK, that's fine. Some additional remarks: - Unlike mentioned in your spec, libtiled is not licensed under BSD at the moment. According to the boilerplates of maprenderer.cpp, gidmapper.cpp, and gidmapper.h, these files are GPLv2+. This is probably a mistake. Please ask upstream for clarification. Currently, BSD- and GPLv2+-licensed code is linked together, and the resulting binary must be licensed under GPLv2+ as the latter it more restrictive than BSD. - Preserve the timestamps by adding -p to the 3rd and 4th "install" statement. - In the first two "install" statements, change the file permissions 664 to 644. Sorry, the 664 was a typo in one of my comments about your mana package and should be fixed there as well. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553
Terje Røsten changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten ---
Some comments:
o choose %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, use only one variant
o change %{_datadir}/guayadeque/* to %{_datadir}/guayadeque
o why is _pkgbuilddir needed? If needed: use %global
o change svn1830.1%{?dist} to 1.svn1830%{?dist} :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release
o some source files are under GPLv2+, however MD5.cpp and hmac/* are not and
maybe more. Please have a closer look.
Could you do a koji scratch build?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851859] Review Request: mana - Opensource 2D MMORPG platform client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851859 --- Comment #11 from Erik Schilling --- Fixed typo in permissions: SPEC: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/mana.spec new SRPM: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/mana-0.6.1-5.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
[Bug 850789] Review Request: babeld - Ad-hoc network routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789 --- Comment #20 from Adam Tkac --- (In reply to comment #19) > > > Adding quagga maintainer. > > Adam, would you be averse to splitting out quagga's babeld into > quagga-babeld so I can Conflict with just that, in case people want to use > quagga and babeld but not quagga's babeld? Or should I just conflict with > quagga? In my opinion it doesn't make much sence to use two different routing daemons on one machine, does it? I would prefer to just conflict with quagga. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851747] Review Request: mediawiki-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851747 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi --- ok. Look for a review hopefully later today... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820115] Review Request: leptonica - C library for efficient image processing and image analysis operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820115 --- Comment #14 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- Created attachment 609462 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=609462&action=edit clean cleans Looks good, but you may clean some rm(s) . Sorry I don't know how review it, I don't know if I have permissions, also I don't have spare time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851747] Review Request: mediawiki-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851747 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License GPLv2+ OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 95c66455c02285b5f271db56479e95a631c0b21aa02b7623ac093ea20c3194fc intersection-MW1.13-37906.tar.gz 95c66455c02285b5f271db56479e95a631c0b21aa02b7623ac093ea20c3194fc intersection-MW1.13-37906.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. Non blocking: Might ask upstream to include a copy of the License. 2. rpmlint says: mediawiki-intersection.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bulleted -> billeted, bullet ed, bullet-ed mediawiki-intersection.noarch: W: no-documentation mediawiki-intersection.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/intersection/DynamicPageList.php mediawiki-intersection.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bulleted -> billeted, bullet ed, bullet-ed 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Might mention to upstream to correct the fsf address sometime. I see no blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. Note that for EPEL6 we will need a mediawiki119 version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #4 from Erik Schilling --- Ok i talked with upstream. The license headers were outdated (was already fixed in master). I did a patch based on the git commit. Fixed the other issues too: SPEC: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/tiled.spec SRPM: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/45541625/tiled-0.8.1-3.fc17.src.rpm regards, Erik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854062] New: Review Request: mediawiki119-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854062 Bug ID: 854062 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: mediawiki119-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/mediawiki-intersection/mediawiki119-intersection.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/mediawiki-intersection/mediawiki119-intersection-37906-1.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: puiterwijk Description: Outputs a bulleted list of most recent items residing in a category, or an intersection of several categories. DynamicPageList is another name for this extension. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851747] Review Request: mediawiki-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851747 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Thanks for the approval! The mediawiki119 version is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854062 . New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mediawiki-intersection Short Description: Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories Owners: puiterwijk 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 854062] Review Request: mediawiki119-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854062 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi --- Taking for review. Will review later today/tomorrow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842633] Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - OpenID authentication application for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842633 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |ERRATA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-django-authopenid-1.0.1-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841199] Review Request: pyobd - OBD-II (SAE-J1979) compliant scantool software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841199 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842633] Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - OpenID authentication application for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842633 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-django-authopenid-1.0.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820115] Review Request: leptonica - C library for efficient image processing and image analysis operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820115 --- Comment #15 from Ding-Yi Chen --- (In reply to comment #14) > Created attachment 609462 [details] > clean cleans Well, I do intend to put this in EPEL5. :-) > Sorry I don't know how review it, I don't know if I have permissions, also I > don't have spare time. As long as you are a fedora packager, you can review and approve. Even if you are not, you can still do the review, but need others to approve. Do worry about the review, everyone has his/her first time. Link for Package Review process http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Link for Review guideline: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines And this tool help you to automate some tasks of the review: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851747] Review Request: mediawiki-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851747 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-gmp-5.0.5-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-gmp-5.0.5-1.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 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|mingw-gmp | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833622] Review Request: mingw-gmp - Cross-compiled GNU arbitrary precision library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-gmp-5.0.2-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-gmp-5.0.2-4.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
