[Bug 854837] sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added CC||echevemas...@gmail.com 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 854837] New: sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 Bug ID: 854837 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: sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/sozi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/sozi/sozi-12.05-1.fc17.src.rpm Summary: Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations Description: Sozi is a small program that can play animated presentations Fedora Account System Username:echevemaster I have other package in review in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854176, so I will be needing a sponsor! ### RPMLINT $ rpmlint -i sozi/sozi-12.05-1.fc17.src.rpm sozi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Inkscape -> Inks cape, Inks-cape, Capeskin The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ### Koji Build # http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4459722 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 Jens Petersen 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 842199] Review Request: php-monolog - Logging for PHP 5.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842199 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet --- Some questions: why do you package 1.1.0 when latest tagged version is 1.2.1 ? (probably tagged after this review was submitted) Summary: "PHP 5.3" ? seems to reduce usage, even if from upstream, could probably be improved %description : should probably be improved (from README ?) Probably a comment about optional dep which need to be installed for various handler (amqp, swiftmailer, gelf, mongo, ...) License is MIT, according to upstream -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to comment #5) > I've updated the specfile to update to the 0.2 release. Could you please also provide an updated srpm? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854764] Review Request:openshift-origin-port-proxy - Script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding for OpenShift Origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846913] Review Request: libcommuni - Communi is a cross-platform IRC client library written with Qt 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913 --- Comment #31 from Jan Kaluža --- Sorry, I meant Comment 0 :). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846913] Review Request: libcommuni - Communi is a cross-platform IRC client library written with Qt 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913
--- Comment #30 from Jan Kaluža ---
Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed the bugs you've found.
Spec URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libcommuni.spec
SRPM URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libcommuni-1.1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #25)
> [!]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
> there is such a file.
Fixed.
> [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
> Note: Patch0 (desktop.patch) Source0 (communi-1.1.2.tar.gz)
Fixed, Patch0 is no longer there.
> [!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
> Note: %define tardirname communi-communi-939dc37
Fixed.
> Issues:
> [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> Note: defattr() present in %files devel section. This is OK if
> packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
I plan to add this package only to EPEL6 and Fedora, so no need for %defattr.
> Rpmlint
> ---
> communi.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libircclient-qt-devel
"communi" package should not obsolete libircclient-qt-devel, fixed.
> communi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary communi
This is not review blocker.
> libcommuni.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libircclient-qt
> libcommuni-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libircclient-qt-devel
That's according to guidelines I think. See the Comment 1.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854256] Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854256
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Hi,
since you are not in the packager group, you need a sponsor first
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
On your spec, there is various issue with it :
- it doesn have a changelog
- you should use macro for path, rather than for well know executable
- BuildArch: x86_64 is wrong, unless there is a reason and then it should be
explained
- %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/configure
you should use the macro %configure, or if it doesn't work, ./configure
- the license file should be shipped as %doc
- BuildRoot is not needed, %clean eithe,r as seen on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean ( the rest of the
rules are also on this page, so I recommend to read it carefully )
There is surely other stuff to fix, but I do not want to overwhelm you for the
first comment :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854596] Review Request: perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate - GSSAPI based Authentication Plugin for LWP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Do you plan to push it to EPEL 5 ? If not, could you remove the obsolete part
of the spec ( %defattr, %clean, etc ), since that would mean less cruft to
remove later ( and avoid people copying them over and over when that's not
needed since a few years ).
Once the issue fixed, I will approve it.
Also, could you ask upstream to ship the license with the tarball ( not
blocking if they do not do it )
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: 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
[!]: 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
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
= 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.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?)
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer sh
[Bug 854596] Review Request: perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate - GSSAPI based Authentication Plugin for LWP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854596 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844157] Review Request: mate-panel - Panel ofthe MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| Blocks|840149 (MATE-DE-tracker)| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|844157 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844157] Review Request: mate-panel - Panel ofthe MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|mate-panel | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844157] Review Request: mate-panel - Panel ofthe MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|mru...@redhat.com |dan.mas...@gmail.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 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Bug 840149 depends on bug 844157, which changed state. Bug 844157 Summary: Review Request: mate-panel - Panel ofthe MATE desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844157] Review Request: mate-panel - Panel ofthe MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||dan.mas...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review- Last Closed|2012-08-21 07:51:00 |2012-09-06 00:20:23 --- Comment #7 from Dan Mashal --- working on this in a separate bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848213] Review Request: cqrlog - An amateur radio contact logging program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848213 Clint Savage changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Clint Savage --- Can you edit your spec to remove the space after the license? fedora-review flagged it as an improper license. Picky, I know. Otherwise, everything is good on this package. I'm approving it now. Thanks for your patience and hard work! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854176] Review Request: python-django-admin-honeypot - A fake Django admin login screen to notify admins of attempted unauthorized access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854176 --- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria --- New Spec and SRPM with changes based on the comments of Matthias Runge Spec URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/python-django-admin-honeypot.spec SRPM URL: http://www.saef.com.ve/fedorarpm/python-django-admin-honeypot-0.2.3-3.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 854176] Review Request: python-django-admin-honeypot - A fake Django admin login screen to notify admins of attempted unauthorized access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854176 --- Comment #8 from Eduardo Echeverria --- (In reply to comment #7) > some drive-by comments: > > - we're in the process of renaming all django-related packages. So you new > package must be named python-django-admin-honeypot > - on that github page, there are also tests included. I recommend, you > should run them in a %check section > - if you don't run checks, there's no need for django/python-django during > build Thanks Matthias by your comments I Change %changelog * Wed Sep 05 2012 Eduardo Eheverria - 0.2.3-3 - Remove python-django during build * Tue Sep 04 2012 Eduardo Echeverria - 0.2.3-2 - Change Summary * Tue Sep 04 2012 Eduardo Echeverria - 0.2.3-1 - initial packaging = RPMLINT = $ rpmlint -i python-django-admin-honeypot-0.2.3-3.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings = Koji Build == http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4459556 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818401] Review Request: 0ad - Cross-Platform RTS Game of Ancient Warfare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 --- Comment #32 from pcpa --- (In reply to comment #31) > Just to be clear here, what question(s) are you asking of Fedora Legal? Some comment about s3tc, and if just not building it is enough (and removing sources at %build time is ok), otherwise there is a bundled nvtt, that bundles an old squish library, that implements code covered by the S3TC patent. Other than that, I just tried to get some attention to this review request :-) PS: debian appears to also package nvidia-texture-tools, see http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/nvidia-texture-tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846913] Review Request: libcommuni - Communi is a cross-platform IRC client library written with Qt 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913 --- Comment #29 from Dan Mashal --- thanks JP -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846913] Review Request: libcommuni - Communi is a cross-platform IRC client library written with Qt 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913 Dan Mashal 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 846913] Review Request: libcommuni - Communi is a cross-platform IRC client library written with Qt 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Component|0x |Package Review Assignee|dan.mas...@gmail.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818401] Review Request: 0ad - Cross-Platform RTS Game of Ancient Warfare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #31 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Just to be clear here, what question(s) are you asking of Fedora Legal? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854609] Review Request: python-moksha-hub - Hub components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854609 Bug 854609 depends on bug 854605, which changed state. Bug 854605 Summary: Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854605] Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-05 20:24:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854605] Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605 --- Comment #8 from Ralph Bean --- Bodhi updates -> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-moksha-common -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854608] Review Request: python-moksha-wsgi - WSGI components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854608 Bug 854608 depends on bug 854605, which changed state. Bug 854605 Summary: Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844157] Review Request: mate-panel - Panel ofthe MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC|dan.mas...@gmail.com| Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Bug 840149 depends on bug 844157, which changed state. Bug 844157 Summary: Review Request: mate-panel - Panel ofthe MATE desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854764] New: Review Request:openshift-origin-port-proxy - Script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding for OpenShift Origin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854764 Bug ID: 854764 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:openshift-origin-port-proxy - Script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding for OpenShift Origin Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: admil...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: OpenShift Origin script to configure HAProxy to do port forwarding from internal to external ports. Fedora Account System Username: maxamillion tdawson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829676] Review Request: pyelftools - Pure-Python library for parsing and analyzing ELF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829676 Soumya Kanti Chakraborty changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sou...@dgplug.org --- Comment #4 from Soumya Kanti Chakraborty --- (In reply to comment #3) > Ping - Kushal? Michel, Kushal is ill (high fever) and Hospitalised. He is bit better and will answer upon your query as soon as he gets online. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854377] Review Request: mesa-libGLU - Mesa libGLU utility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854377
Yanko Kaneti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yan...@declera.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti ---
- This is repackaging of something already shipped so I am not going to get too
much into it, but I think it would be good to sort out the licence header of
glu_mangle.h which currently says LGPLv2+. or the License tag...
- packagaing guildelines say %global instead of %define
- you can lose the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/man/man3/gl[A-Z]*
and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (as per latest rpm developemts)
Otherwise:
- it buils in mock
- mesa-libGLU.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libGLU.so.1.3.1
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 is apparently expected
- ts part of a bigger mesa update so the fact that it cant be currently
installed due to gl-manpages conflicting with other things is expected
APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849379] Review Request: graphite-web - A Django webapp for enterprise scalable realtime graphing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849379 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Steffan --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4458418 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849381] Review Request: python-whisper - Simple database library for storing time-series data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849381 Jonathan Steffan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-09-05 14:20:41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849382] Review Request: python-bucky - CollectD and StatsD adapter for Graphite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849382 Jonathan Steffan changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |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 849382] Review Request: python-bucky - CollectD and StatsD adapter for Graphite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849382 Jonathan Steffan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-09-05 14:20:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849379] Review Request: graphite-web - A Django webapp for enterprise scalable realtime graphing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849379 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan --- Created attachment 610105 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=610105&action=edit Mock epel 6 x86_64 build log. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849379] Review Request: graphite-web - A Django webapp for enterprise scalable realtime graphing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849379 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan --- I'm not seeing this issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854377] Review Request: mesa-libGLU - Mesa libGLU utility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854377 --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson --- Updated spec and srpm at the same urls as above: - BuildRequires: mesa-libGL-devel - -devel Requires: gl-manpages instead of bundling, recently added in bug #854660 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- mediawiki119-intersection-37906-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 847538] Review Request: mediawiki119-HTTP302Found - Forces an external HTTP 302 redirect instead of internal redirects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847538 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-05 13:28:26 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- mediawiki119-HTTP302Found-2.0.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 --- Comment #43 from John D. Ramsdell --- What is blocking progress on the review of the Datalog package? Am I supposed to be doing something? I thought I responded to all requests for changes. John -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854723] Review Request: bat - Binary Analysis Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854723 Wei-Lun Chao changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||854729 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854729] Review Request: bat-extratools-java - A collection of extra java tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854729 Wei-Lun Chao changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On||854723 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854729] New: Review Request: bat-extratools-java - A collection of extra java tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854729 Bug ID: 854729 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: bat-extratools-java - A collection of extra java tools for the BAT Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: blue...@member.fsf.org Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SPEC URL: https://api.opensuse.org/public/source/home:bluebat/bat-extratools-java/bat-extratools-java.spec SRPM URL: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/bluebat/Fedora_17/src/bat-extratools-java-8.0-3.1.src.rpm Description: A collection of extra Java tools for the Binary Analysis Tool. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854723] Review Request: bat - Binary Analysis Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854723 Wei-Lun Chao changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||854728 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854728] Review Request: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854728 Wei-Lun Chao changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On||854723 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854728] New: Review Request: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854728 Bug ID: 854728 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: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: blue...@member.fsf.org Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SPEC URL: https://api.opensuse.org/public/source/home:bluebat/bat-extratools/bat-extratools.spec SRPM URL: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/bluebat/Fedora_17/src/bat-extratools-8.0-4.1.src.rpm Description: A collection of extra tools for the Binary Analysis Tool, scraped from GPL source code releases and firmware replacement projects, plus projects. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854723] Review Request: bat - Binary Analysis Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854723 Wei-Lun Chao changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854723] New: Review Request: bat - Binary Analysis Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854723 Bug ID: 854723 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: bat - Binary Analysis Tool Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: blue...@member.fsf.org Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SPEC URL: https://api.opensuse.org/public/source/home:bluebat/bat/bat.spec SRPM URL: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/bluebat/Fedora_17/src/bat-8.0-2.1.src.rpm Description: The Binary Analysis Tool is a modular framework that assists with auditing the contents of compiled software. It makes it easier and cheaper to look inside technology, and this helps compliance and due diligence activities. The tool is freely available to everyone. The community can use it and participate in further development, and work together to help reduce errors when shipping devices or products containing Free and Open Source Software. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo - A MMX/SSE2 accelerated library for manipulating JPEG image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670
--- Comment #5 from Gary Gatling ---
Ok. Working on building and testing a turbojpeg{,-devel} pkg out of this
package. Will post the urls when its ready. Thanks a lot.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818401] Review Request: 0ad - Cross-Platform RTS Game of Ancient Warfare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 --- Comment #30 from Bruno Wolff III --- Alpha 11 should be due out any day now, and it looks like there are some significant improvements. (I think gates are supposed to work now, which will make walls more useful.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 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 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174
--- Comment #5 from Ondrej Kozina ---
Thank you for the comments. Anyway does it mean you are going to review the
package (oficially)?
> I'm not sure if that file should be where it is:
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/bin/compare-dirs
Unfortunately, me neither. I took the location from upstream
Hope I fixed all other issues with the package.
Spec URL: http://okozina.fedorapeople.org/snapper/0.0.14/2/snapper.spec
SRPM URL:
http://okozina.fedorapeople.org/snapper/0.0.14/2/snapper-0.0.14-2.20120905gitb0d0145.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854660] Review Request: gl-manpages - OpenGL man pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854660 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-09-05 11:46:51 --- Comment #6 from Yanko Kaneti --- Imported. Built for rawhide and f18. I should have used xgl-maint as InitialCC not sure how to change it postfactum. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328
--- Comment #8 from Debarshi Ray ---
Here is a Spec with most of the fixes:
http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gnome-initial-setup.spec
It just needs to be decided if gnome-initial-setup has a runtime dependency on
gnome-session and polkit. If it does, they need to be in Requires, else it
should own %{_datadir}/polkit-1/actions and %{_datadir}/gnome-session/sessions
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328
--- Comment #7 from Debarshi Ray ---
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
use %global instead of %define
- license
GPLv2+ but in some cases the copyright headers are GPLv3+, but this has been
fixed upstream
COPYING should be in %doc
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- missing BR: desktop-file-utils, intltool, pkgconfig(iso-codes)
- no unnecessary BR
- locales, but does not use %find_lang
- not relocatable
- does not own all directories,
%{_datadir}/gnome-initial-setup
%{_datadir}/gnome-session/sessions
%{_datadir}/polkit-1/actions
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- .desktop files validate
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854660] Review Request: gl-manpages - OpenGL man pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854660 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854605] Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605 --- 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 846913] Review Request: libcommuni - Communi is a cross-platform IRC client library written with Qt 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913 --- Comment #28 from J-P Nurmi --- Just keep in mind that the framework is the main product. The desktop client is just optional extra. Having said that, applications should be able to use libcommuni(-devel) without installing the example client. Embedding libcommuni to other applications as suggested on #communi is IMHO not an acceptable solution. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818401] Review Request: 0ad - Cross-Platform RTS Game of Ancient Warfare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #29 from pcpa --- 0ad is available in debian, see http://packages.debian.org/unstable/main/0ad and a license review can be viewed at http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-games/packages/trunk/0ad/debian/copyright?view=markup The package I am proposing also removes the nvtt files before starting build and patches the build to not compile code that uses S3TC. I messed things a bit by making a review request at rpmfusion, then later closing it and choosing to only make a review request with S3TC disabled, sorry... I really would like to have a Legal response about it, as, besides in alpha, it is a "state of the art" game, very high quality and quite playable, and would be very valuable in fedora game spin. Blame me if I forgot some step :-) but I believe I followed all recommendations in this report, and the latest package is at Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/0ad.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/0ad-r11863-5.fc18.src.rpm and should build cleanly for f16 or newer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854660] Review Request: gl-manpages - OpenGL man pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854660 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Yanko Kaneti --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gl-manpages Short Description: OpenGL man pages Owners: yaneti ajax Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854605] Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-moksha-common Short Description: Common components for Moksha Owners: ralph lmacken 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 854605] Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (ASL 2.0 or MIT) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. See below - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 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. This spec is not allowed for el5 as it misses the buildroot and %clean sections. 2. rpmlint says: python-moksha-common.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moksha 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I see no blockers anymore, so this package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 Jaroslav Škarvada 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 854690] Review Request: python-dslib - A Python library for accessing Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854690 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||854691 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||854690 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854660] Review Request: gl-manpages - OpenGL man pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854660 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- "xgl-ma...@redhat.com" is not a valid FAS account. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo - A MMX/SSE2 accelerated library for manipulating JPEG image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski ---
Gray, you are going to have to just package the turbojpeg{,-devel} 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 854691] New: Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 Bug ID: 854691 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: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky) Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/datovka.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/datovka-2.1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: GUI application allowing access to Czech Databox - an electronic communication interface endorsed by the Czech government. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854690] Review Request: python-dslib - A Python library for accessing Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854690 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||854679 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854679] Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854679 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||854690 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854690] Review Request: python-dslib - A Python library for accessing Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854690 Jaroslav Škarvada 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 823102] Review Request: 0ad-data - The Data Files for 0 AD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823102 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||818401 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818401] Review Request: 0ad - Cross-Platform RTS Game of Ancient Warfare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||823102 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854690] New: Review Request: python-dslib - A Python library for accessing Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854690 Bug ID: 854690 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: python-dslib - A Python library for accessing Czech Databox (Datové schránky) Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-dslib.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-dslib-2.1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: dslib is a Python library for accessing a 'Databox' - an electronic communication interface endorsed by the Czech government. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad It is used by Datovka (interface to Czech Databox AKA Datové schránky). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854660] Review Request: gl-manpages - OpenGL man pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854660 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gl-manpages Short Description: OpenGL man pages Owners: yaneti ajax Branches: f18 InitialCC: xgl-ma...@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 823096] Review Request: nvidia-texture-tools - Collection of image processing and texture manipulation tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823096 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|818401 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818401] Review Request: 0ad - Cross-Platform RTS Game of Ancient Warfare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|823102, 823096 | --- Comment #28 from pcpa --- Reverse dependency. It should be 0ad-data that depends on 0ad for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823102] Review Request: 0ad-data - The Data Files for 0 AD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823102 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|818401 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851583] Review Request: gnome-abrt - System problems browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851583
Richard Marko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Richard Marko ---
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.
[-]: 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
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
there is such a file.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[-]: 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.
[-]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[-]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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 times
[Bug 854670] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo - A MMX/SSE2 accelerated library for manipulating JPEG image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670 --- Comment #3 from Gary Gatling --- Hello. Was hoping there can be a el6 branch for VirtualGL. VirtualGL review request is bugzilla 834127. VirtualGL has a BuildRequires: for turbojpeg-devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854681] Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854681 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- No SCM request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854681] Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854681 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- No SCM request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo - A MMX/SSE2 accelerated library for manipulating JPEG image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter --- Having an epel-6 pkg Obsoletes the core/system libjpeg is not acceptable, and I'm not sure if this can be made parallel-installable with libjpeg either You might want to mention your motivation and justification for wanting this in epel-6. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854609] Review Request: python-moksha-hub - Hub components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854609
--- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean ---
New release: use %{optflags}
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-hub.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-hub-1.0.0-3.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 854605] Review Request: python-moksha-common - Common components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854605
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean ---
Quick third release changing license to the more correct "ASL 2.0 or MIT":
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-common.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-common-1.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm
--- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean ---
Still another: Use %{optflags}:
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-common.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-common-1.0.0-4.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 854681] Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854681 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-09-05 10:41:18 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 854679 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854608] Review Request: python-moksha-wsgi - WSGI components for Moksha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854608
--- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean ---
New release: use %{optflags}
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-wsgi.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-moksha-wsgi-1.0.0-3.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 854679] Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854679 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- *** Bug 854681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854679] Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854679 Jaroslav Škarvada 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 854681] Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854681 Jaroslav Škarvada 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 854679] New: Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854679 Bug ID: 854679 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: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: sudsds is a fork of the suds library modified to meet the needs for interaction with the servers of Czech Databox. The modifications are related to HTTPS proxy, server certificate validation and other SSL related functions. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad Actually this is a fork of our python-suds package maintained by CZ.NIC. It is needed by dslib which is needed by Datovka (interface to Czech Databox AKA Datové schránky). CZ.NIC developers are open to idea of merging their changes to original suds (ticket: https://git.nic.cz/redmine/issues/2004). But it doesn't seem to be trivial task. I also started github project to help them with the merge (https://github.com/yarda/suds). In the meantime it would be great to have python-sudsds in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854681] New: Review Request: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854681 Bug ID: 854681 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: python-sudsds - A python SOAP client modified for usage with Czech Databox Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/datovka/python-sudsds-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: sudsds is a fork of the suds library modified to meet the needs for interaction with the servers of Czech Databox. The modifications are related to HTTPS proxy, server certificate validation and other SSL related functions. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad Actually this is a fork of our python-suds package maintained by CZ.NIC. It is needed by dslib which is needed by Datovka (interface to Czech Databox AKA Datové schránky). CZ.NIC developers are open to idea of merging their changes to original suds (ticket: https://git.nic.cz/redmine/issues/2004). But it doesn't seem to be trivial task. I also started github project to help them with the merge (https://github.com/yarda/suds). In the meantime it would be great to have python-sudsds in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854660] Review Request: gl-manpages - OpenGL man pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854660 Adam Jackson changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson --- Taking, this affects the mesa and mesa-libGLU packaging. Content-wise this does not regress from the current Mesa packaging, in fact it's an improvement since the man pages are noarch. rpmlint does complain, but it complains equally about what's currently in Mesa. Builds fine in mock, passes all the MUSTs listed on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines 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 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328
--- Comment #6 from Debarshi Ray ---
[rishi@kolache SPECS]$ rpmlint gnome-initial-setup.spec
gnome-initial-setup.spec:52: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
gnome-initial-setup.spec:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[rishi@kolache SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/gnome-initial-setup-0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
gnome-initial-setup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firstboot ->
first boot, first-boot, firstborn
gnome-initial-setup.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
gnome-initial-setup.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
The pedantic way is to use an extra % with the RPM macros. eg., %{buildroot}
and %{_sysconfdir}.
The spelling mistake is a false alarm.
[rishi@kolache SPECS]$ rpmlint
/home/rishi/devel/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/gnome-initial-setup-0.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firstboot
-> first boot, first-boot, firstborn
Ditto.
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/welcome-tour.desktop
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/gnome-initial-setup-copy-worker.desktop
Can be ignored, I think.
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/as/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/el/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/gl/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/he/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/hi/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/id/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/lt/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/lv/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/nb/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/pa/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/sl/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/sr/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/sr@latin/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/tr/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/uk/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/vi/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/zh_HK/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
gnome-initial-setup.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES/gnome-initial-setup.mo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 28 warnings.
Use %find_lang.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
[rishi@kolache SPECS]$ rpmlint
/home/rishi/devel/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/gnome-initial-setup-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
gnome-initial-setup-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gnome-initial-setup-0.2/gnome-initial-setup/gis-assistant-clutter.c
gnome-initial-setup-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gnome-initial-setup-0.2/gnome-initial-setup/pages/language/cc-common-language.c
gnome-initial-setup-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gnome-initial-setup-0.2/gnome-initial-setup/gis-assistant-private.h
gnome-initial-setup-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gnome-initial-setup-0.2/gnome-initial-setup/pages/account/um-utils.h
gnome-initial-setup-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gnome-initial-setup-0.2/gnome-initial-setup/pages/account/um-photo-dialog.c
gnome-initial-s
