[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 #33 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Hi Matthias I fedpkg update in cvs for bohdi Creating a new update for python-django-admin-honeypot-0.2.3-5.fc19 python-django-admin-honeypot-0.2.3-5.fc19 not tagged as an update candidate why?, i don't understand Regards Eduardo, f19 is currently our development version, so currently f19 == devel == rawhide. To get a package into that, it's just sufficient to build it, no need to fedpkg update. If you want your package also get included in f18, you'll need to file a package change request according to this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages (just request f18 branch) It is also possible, to conditionalize the test, so that the check is just executed at certain fedora versions. Matthias -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856099] Review Request: python-django-appconf - A helper class for handling configuration defaults of packaged apps gracefully
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856099 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the quick review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-appconf Short Description: A helper class for handling configuration defaults of packaged apps gracefully Owners: mrunge Branches: f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Some drive-by comments: - no need to define BuildRoot: anymore - you don't need to clean the buildroot during install anymore - even the clean: section is not required anymore - no need to defattr in %files section, only, when building for epel5 Those four are deprecated and shouldn't be used any more. - project homepage is currently: http://sourceforge.net/projects/quearcode/ (unless you'll configure projects sf-page else ;-) ) quearcode.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://quearcode.sourceforge.net HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Full review to follow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: 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.
[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD 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
[Bug 799558] Review Request: xfce4-soundmenu-plugin - MPRIS2 control plugin for the Xfce panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799558 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Can not find any builds for this. I guess, you just forgot that, right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856513] New: Review Request: python-termcolor - ANSII Color formatting for output in terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856513 Bug ID: 856513 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-termcolor - ANSII Color formatting for output in terminal Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mru...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-termcolor.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-termcolor-1.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: ANSII Color formatting for output in terminal. Fedora Account System Username: mrunge [mrunge@turing SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-termcolor.spec ../SRPMS/python-termcolor-1.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/python-termcolor-1.1.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4476960 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856513] Review Request: python-termcolor - ANSII Color formatting for output in terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856513 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||856182 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856516] New: Review Request: perl-podlators - Format POD source into various output formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856516 Bug ID: 856516 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: perl-podlators - Format POD source into various output formats Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-podlators/perl-podlators.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-podlators/perl-podlators-2.4.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This package contains Pod::Man and Pod::Text modules which convert POD input to *roff source output, suitable for man pages, or plain text. It also includes several sub-classes of Pod::Text for formatted output to terminals with various capabilities. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar This package will dual-live after sub-packing it from main perl in F19. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856516] Review Request: perl-podlators - Format POD source into various output formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856516 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||826872 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #11 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- CGTextures confirmed that. From email: Yes, special permission has been given to Wildfiregames for releasing these textures under CC-BY-SA. Releasing materials from CGTextures under open source licenses is not allowed, but the Wildfiregames artists discovered this too late (even though we are very clear about this in our license and FAQ). We decided to allow them to release the textures under CC, as it was an honest mistake. Kind regards, Marcel Vijfwinkel So we can continue with 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 856545] New: Review Request: amqpclt - Versatile AMQP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856545 Bug ID: 856545 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: amqpclt - Versatile AMQP client Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: massimo.pala...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/amqpclt/amqpclt.spec SRPM URL: https://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/amqpclt/amqpclt-0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: amqpclt is a versatile tool to interact with messaging brokers speaking AMQP and/or message queues (see messaging.queue) on disk. It receives messages (see messaging.message) from an incoming module, optionally massaging them (i.e. filtering and/or modifying), and sends them to an outgoing module. Depending on which modules are used, the tool can perform different operations. Fedora Account System Username: mpaladin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785371] Review request: speed-dreams - The Open Racing Car Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371 --- Comment #84 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- speed-dreams-2.1.0-11.trunk_r4810.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/speed-dreams-2.1.0-11.trunk_r4810.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 821224] tntnet - A web application server for web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tntnet-2.1-15.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tntnet-2.1-15.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 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 --- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Ping. Is it intentional what this package got stuck in updates-testing for more than a month? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856554] New: python-pottymouth - Transform unstructured, untrusted text to safe, valid XHTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856554 Bug ID: 856554 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: python-pottymouth - Transform unstructured, untrusted text to safe, valid XHTML Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-pottymouth/1/python-pottymouth.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-pottymouth/1/python-pottymouth-2.2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: PottyMouth transforms completely unstructured and untrusted text to valid, nice-looking, completely safe XHTML. PottyMouth is designed to handle input text from non-technical, potentially careless or malicious users. It produces HTML that is completely safe, programmatically and visually, to include on any web page. And you don't need to make your users read any instructions before they start typing. They don't even need to know that PottyMouth is being used rpmlint -i python-pottymouth-2.2.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-pottymouth.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untrusted - entrusted, trusted, encrusted The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-pottymouth.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted - entrusted, trusted, encrusted The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-pottymouth.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically - pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-pottymouth.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/python-pottymouth/tests.py /usr/bin/env An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. python-pottymouth.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/python-pottymouth/profile.py /usr/bin/env An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. rpmlint -i python-pottymouth-2.2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm python-pottymouth.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untrusted - entrusted, trusted, encrusted The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-pottymouth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted - entrusted, trusted, encrusted The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-pottymouth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programmatically - pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 --- Comment #20 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com --- Hi, (In reply to comment #17) With 0.5.3 sources, with dropped patches, rebuilt FlightCrew and ZipArchive, rebuilt Sigil works just fine on Fedora 16 (local mock build). Has this review stopped due to embedded libtidy? That, and a serious case of -ENOTIME, if an interested Fedora packager want to take this over, please feel free to do so, What needs to be done to finish this up...? A good question, Dan, what is your intent of comment #15, do you want sigil to move to the system libtidy? And if so, just use the system libtidy as is (could be troublesome), or try to get the sigil patches added (probably also trouble some since they seem somewhat ebook specific)... Regards, Hans -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #19 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Fails to build in Rawhide (this is a blocker): * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4477233 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856560] New: Review Request: pg_journal - Module for sending PostgreSQL log messages directly to the systemd journal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856560 Bug ID: 856560 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: pg_journal - Module for sending PostgreSQL log messages directly to the systemd journal Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: zdzi...@irc.pl Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://pipebreaker.pl/dump/pg_journal.spec SRPM URL: http://pipebreaker.pl/dump/pg_journal-0.1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This is a PostgreSQL preload module for sending log messages directly to the systemd journal log. Fedora Account System Username: ttorcz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856560] Review Request: pg_journal - Module for sending PostgreSQL log messages directly to the systemd journal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856560 Tomasz Torcz zdzi...@irc.pl changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=823937 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #32 from Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-5.p1.fc16.src.rpm * added requires on cmake for -devel * removed IBPP library from source with bundled wt-generate-tarball.sh script -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] inkscape-sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856099] Review Request: python-django-appconf - A helper class for handling configuration defaults of packaged apps gracefully
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856099 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #33 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com --- Approved by cheeselee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835062] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod - Module::Install extension to automatically convert POD to a README
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835062 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 --- Comment #20 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #19) Fails to build in Rawhide (this is a blocker): * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4477233 Ugh, I was afraid of this. The problem is that I rebased the Perl package on 0.18 of Qpid which is still only in testing ATM. I'm going to revert back to being based only on 0.16 so we can work against what is the current stable release. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4477354 Reverted SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-qpid.spec Reverted SRPM: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/perl-qpid-0.16-1.2.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 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 --- Comment #18 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- The package is intended for F18 but some people wanted to try it for F17. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #21 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #20) (In reply to comment #19) Fails to build in Rawhide (this is a blocker): * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4477233 Ugh, I was afraid of this. The problem is that I rebased the Perl package on 0.18 of Qpid which is still only in testing ATM. I'm going to revert back to being based only on 0.16 so we can work against what is the current stable release. Yep, this sounds like a plan. Be right back - stay tuned. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 835062] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod - Module::Install extension to automatically convert POD to a README
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835062 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Source tar ball is original (verified from http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/B/BI/BINGOS/Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18.tar.gz, SHA-256: a905bf3699af2c6727991634d5ae004d64b8e9279ad01eb696d8b8bbe571bdfb). Ok. Source0 and URL are usable. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Module/Install/ReadmeFromPod.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/Module/Install/ReadmeFromPod.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/Module/Install/ReadmeFromPod.pm and LICENSE. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. TODO: Build-require `perl(lib)' (Makefile.PL:2). TODO: Remove useless build-require `perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)'. TODO: I recommend to drop `perl(App:pod2pdf)' from dependencies. The package is properly evaluated and it pulls in a lot packages which are not needed otherwise. TODO: Remove cleaning empty directories from %install section. This is default now. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18-1.fc19.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18-1.fc19.noarch.rpm perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US manpage - manage, man page, man-page perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US manpage - manage, man page, man-page 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. TODO: Write the `manpage' as `manual page' in the description. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18-1.fc19.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 13:53 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6814 Feb 25 2012 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot18353 Sep 12 13:52 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18/LICENSE drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Feb 25 2012 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18/tools -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2299 Feb 6 2012 /usr/share/doc/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18/tools/git-log.pl -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3109 Sep 12 13:52 /usr/share/man/man3/Module::Install::ReadmeFromPod.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 13:52 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 13:52 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module/Install -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6356 Feb 25 2012 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Module/Install/ReadmeFromPod.pm File permissions and layout is Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl = 0:5.006 1 perl(App::pod2pdf) 1 perl(base) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.1) 1 perl(Module::Install) = 1 1 perl(Module::Install::Base) 1 perl(Pod::Html) 1 perl(Pod::Man) 1 perl(Pod::Text) = 3.13 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(vars) 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 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Module::Install::ReadmeFromPod) = 0.18 1 perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod = 0.18-1.fc19 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod-0.18-1.fc19.noarch.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F19 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4477405). Ok. Package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please consider fixing all `TODO' items before building the package. Resolution: Package 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 845264] Review Request: maven-artifact-resolver - Maven Artifact Resolution API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264 --- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Now it's really fixed, I added Epoch. Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-artifact-resolver/3/maven-artifact-resolver.spec SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-artifact-resolver/3/maven-artifact-resolver-1.0-3.fc17.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4477388 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847420] Review Request: perl-Date-Holidays-DE - Perl module to determine German holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847420 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 --- Comment #34 from Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com --- Thank you Robin for your patience, reminders and care. I've learned a lot during this 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 821404] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 --- Comment #24 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com --- Steven, are you still here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #35 from Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: wt Short Description: C++ library for developing web applications Owners: miminar 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 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #22 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint perl-qpid-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (Apache
Software License v2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum perl-qpid-0.16.tar.gz*
266f0e187e9df43dc85422d4a1b934fcfbb15c83a50e1a8ac73a62ef47953ca4
perl-qpid-0.16.tar.gz
266f0e187e9df43dc85422d4a1b934fcfbb15c83a50e1a8ac73a62ef47953ca4
perl-qpid-0.16.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros. Well, almost consistently. You should
change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} but this isn't a blocker from my PoV.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4
and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ All filenames in the package(s) are valid UTF-8.
APPROVED.
PS it will be great if you review this package in return:
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/845221 - ilbc - Internet Low Bitrate Codec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847420] Review Request: perl-Date-Holidays-DE - Perl module to determine German holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847420
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Source tar ball is original (verified from
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/MS/MSCHMITT/Date-Holidays-DE-1.6.tar.gz,
SHA-256: e1bc9c15123ede6432745afad846557b747bf8c2b587f4b713eb77f4da571968). Ok.
Source0 and URL are usable. Ok.
Summary verified from DE.pm. Ok.
Description verified from README. Ok.
License verified from README. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
TODO: Remove explicit %defattr from %files section.
TODO: Build-require `perl(Time::Local)' because the package can dual-live in
the future (DE.pm:7, http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Time-Local/).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' because the package can dual-live in the
future (DE.pm:13, http://search.cpan.org/~toddr/Exporter/).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Test)' because the package can dual-live in the
future (test.pl:8, http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/Test/).
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Date-Holidays-DE.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6-1.fc19.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
perl-Date-Holidays-DE.spec:31: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl Makefile.PL
PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} INSTALLDIRS=vendor
perl-Date-Holidays-DE.spec:40: W: macro-in-comment %doc
perl-Date-Holidays-DE.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US strftime -
trimmest
perl-Date-Holidays-DE.src:31: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl Makefile.PL
PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} INSTALLDIRS=vendor
perl-Date-Holidays-DE.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %doc
perl-Date-Holidays-DE.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US strftime
- trimmest
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
FIX: Escape %doc in the comment with per-cent to prevent from rpm-evaluation.
TODO: Remove the `PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}' argument from `perl
Makefile.PL' command. It's not necessary.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 14:33
/usr/share/doc/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1842 Feb 13 2012
/usr/share/doc/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1773 Feb 13 2012
/usr/share/doc/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Feb 13 2012
/usr/share/doc/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6/example
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1862 Aug 15 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6/example/feiertage.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2102 Aug 27 2009
/usr/share/doc/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6/example/werktage-diff.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5377 Sep 12 14:33
/usr/share/man/man3/Date::Holidays::DE.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 14:33
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Date/Holidays
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot17917 Feb 13 2012
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Date/Holidays/DE.pm
File permissions and layout are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
1 perl(Date::Calc) = 5.0
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.1)
1 perl(POSIX)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(Time::Local)
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
Binary requires are Ok.
$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
1 perl(Date::Holidays::DE) = 1.6
1 perl-Date-Holidays-DE = 1.6-1.fc19
Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Date-Holidays-DE-1.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.
Package builds in F19
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4477510). ???
Please correct all `FIX' issues, consider fixing `TODO' items and provide new
spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT 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 818401] Review Request: 0ad - Cross-Platform RTS Game of Ancient Warfare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 --- Comment #45 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- The License tag should reflect the binary package, not the SRPM, so this is correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||855331 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855331] Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||809950 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855331] Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|809950 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|855331 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! I do intend pacakges for EL-5 if possible. Fixed URL. License tag is GPLv3+, as it says in the code, and in COPYING. Not sure what's up there. SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/quearcode/quearcode-0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/quearcode/quearcode.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 847420] Review Request: perl-Date-Holidays-DE - Perl module to determine German holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847420
--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de ---
(In reply to comment #1)
TODO: Remove explicit %defattr from %files section.
Will not happen because of Fedora EPEL 5 and 6.
TODO: Build-require `perl(Time::Local)' because the package can dual-live in
the future (DE.pm:7, http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Time-Local/).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' because the package can dual-live in
the future (DE.pm:13, http://search.cpan.org/~toddr/Exporter/).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Test)' because the package can dual-live in the
future (test.pl:8, http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/Test/).
Good pointer, will do so.
FIX: Escape %doc in the comment with per-cent to prevent from rpm-evaluation.
Whoops, yes. Will do so.
TODO: Remove the `PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}' argument from `perl
Makefile.PL' command. It's not necessary.
Without, I recognized a build failure on Fedora EPEL 5 the first time, thus I
re-added it.
I will provide an updated spec file if you are fine with my replies here...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823102] Review Request: 0ad-data - The Data Files for 0 AD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823102 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #12 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- I agree with Miroslav. I don't think there are any legal issues here, lifting FE-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 835062] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod - Module::Install extension to automatically convert POD to a README
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835062 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod Short Description: Module::Install extension to automatically convert POD to a README Owners: jplesnik mmaslano ppisar psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844013] Review Request: openshift-origin-broker - OpenShift Origin broker components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844013 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 821404] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 --- Comment #25 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Yes still alive ;) thank you for pinging me. Looking back over this review request, the reviews you executed look good, so the next steps are for me to review your package followed by you submitting a scm request. Let me got on with my day a bit and I'll make a good effort to review your package today or early tomorrow. Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844013] Review Request: openshift-origin-broker - OpenShift Origin broker components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844013 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-9.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-9.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 835062] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-ReadmeFromPod - Module::Install extension to automatically convert POD to a README
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835062 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856099] Review Request: python-django-appconf - A helper class for handling configuration defaults of packaged apps gracefully
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856099 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856099] Review Request: python-django-appconf - A helper class for handling configuration defaults of packaged apps gracefully
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856099 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-appconf-0.5-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-appconf-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 856636] New: Review Request: libopus - Opus Interactive Audio Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856636 Bug ID: 856636 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: libopus - Opus Interactive Audio Codec Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: tcall...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/libopus.spec SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/libopus-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Opus is a totally open, royalty-free, highly versatile audio codec. Opus is unmatched for interactive speech and music transmission over the Internet, but also intended for storage and streaming applications. It is standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as RFC 6716 which incorporated technology from Skype's SILK codec and Xiph.Org's CELT codec. Fedora Account System Username: spot -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- License is correct, I guess, it's plainly a false statement. Package 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 856636] Review Request: libopus - Opus Interactive Audio Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856636 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yan...@declera.com --- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- mmm... https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/opus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849829] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-SVM - Perl bindings for the libsvm Support Vector Machine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849829 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 856636] Review Request: libopus - Opus Interactive Audio Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856636 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-09-12 09:52:09 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 744725 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744725] Review Request: opus - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744725 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- *** Bug 856636 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 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Odd. Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: quearcode Short Description: A tool for creating QR Codes Owners: limb Branches: f18 f17 f15 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 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829809] Review Request: python-svg - Python wrapper for svg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829809 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Ping? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849829] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-SVM - Perl bindings for the libsvm Support Vector Machine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849829
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Source tar ball is original (verified from
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/L/LA/LAIRDM/Algorithm-SVM-0.13.tar.gz,
SHA-256: f72572df107eb45cd2ff6165c183164f38c7da98417d2242e334e6999fb7e422).
Summary verified from lib/Algorithm/SVM.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Algorithm/SVM.pm. Ok.
Description verified from README. Ok.
Patches are Ok.
There is XS code, default BuildArch is Ok.
TODO: You can drop removing empty directories from %install section. This is
default behaviour.
FIX: Build-require `perl(Carp)' for running tests
(lib/Algorithm/SVM/DataSet.pm:5).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' which can dual-live in the future
(lib/Algorithm/SVM.pm:8, http://search.cpan.org/~toddr/Exporter/).
TODO: Build-require `perl(AutoLoader)' which can dual-live in the future
(lib/Algorithm/SVM.pm:9, http://search.cpan.org/~smueller/AutoLoader/).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Test)' which can dual-live in the future (test.pl:8,
http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/Test/).
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Algorithm-SVM.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13-1.fc19.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-SVM-*
perl-Algorithm-SVM.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsvm - Librium
perl-Algorithm-SVM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US classifcation
- classification, clarification, ossification
perl-Algorithm-SVM.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsvm - Librium
perl-Algorithm-SVM.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
classifcation - classification, clarification, ossification
perl-Algorithm-SVM.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/SVM/SVM.so SVM.so()(64bit)
perl-Algorithm-SVM.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/SVM/SVM.so SVM.so()(64bit)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
TODO: Correct typo `classifcation' in description.
FIX: Do not export private library. Insert `%{?perl_default_filter}' code
before %description section
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/Tips#private-shared-object-provides).
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 16:08
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/SVM
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot12972 Jan 22 2008
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/SVM.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3934 Jan 15 2006
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/SVM/DataSet.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 16:08
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/SVM
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot57352 Sep 12 16:08
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/SVM/SVM.so
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 92 Sep 12 16:08
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/SVM/autosplit.ix
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 16:09
/usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1864 Jan 22 2008
/usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4446 Jan 22 2008
/usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot61530 Dec 23 2005
/usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13/sample.model
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot61530 Sep 12 16:09
/usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13/sample.model.1
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4541 Sep 12 16:08
/usr/share/man/man3/Algorithm::SVM.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2873 Sep 12 16:08
/usr/share/man/man3/Algorithm::SVM::DataSet.3pm.gz
File permissions and layout are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
| sort | uniq -c
1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
1 libm.so.6()(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
1 libsvm.so.2()(64bit)
1 perl = 0:5.006
1 perl(Algorithm::SVM)
1 perl(AutoLoader)
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(DynaLoader)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.1)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(vars)
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
1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Binary requires are Ok.
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-SVM-0.13-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
| sort | uniq -c
1 perl(Algorithm::SVM) = 0.13
1 perl-Algorithm-SVM = 0.13-1.fc19
1 perl(Algorithm::SVM::DataSet)
1 perl-Algorithm-SVM(x86-64) = 0.13-1.fc19
1 SVM.so()(64bit)
FIX: Do not export private library
[Bug 851734] Review Request: perl-Regexp-Grammars - Add grammatical parsing features to perl regular expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851734 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- quearcode-0.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/quearcode-0.2-2.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 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- quearcode-0.2-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/quearcode-0.2-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- quearcode-0.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/quearcode-0.2-2.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 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- quearcode-0.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/quearcode-0.2-2.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 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- Thank you, Peter! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-qpid Short Description: Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework Owners: mcpierce Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: mcpierce -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845221] Review Request: ilbc - Internet Low Bitrate Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dpie...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dpie...@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 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 --- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844013] Review Request: openshift-origin-broker - OpenShift Origin broker components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844013 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-10.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-10.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 851734] Review Request: perl-Regexp-Grammars - Add grammatical parsing features to perl regular expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851734
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Source tar ball is original (verified from
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DC/DCONWAY/Regexp-Grammars-1.021.tar.gz,
SHA-256: d2f9bdbc7da37e787077f7abfdd4217db8b5e0a838a3f4ff8dfe423840b2417a). Ok.
URL and Source0 are usable Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Regexp/Grammars.pm. Ok.
Description is Ok.
License verified from lib/Regexp/Grammars.pm. Ok.
No XS code exists, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
TODO: Remove useless `perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)' build-require. Your spec file
utilizes Module::Build build system.
FIX: Build-require `perl(Scalar::Util)' for running tests
(lib/Regexp/Grammars.pm:10).
FIX: Build-require `perl(Data::Dumper)' for running tests
(lib/Regexp/Grammars.pm:11).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Moose)' for optional tests (t/moose.t:5).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints)' for optional tests
(t/moose.t:13).
FIX: Build-require `perl(List::Util)' for running tests
(t/error_translate.t:5).
FIX: %filter_from_requires /perl(List::Util)/ is not valid sed expression:
Finding Requires: /bin/sh -c while read FILE; do /usr/lib/rpm/rpmdeps -R
${FILE}; done | /bin/sort -u | /usr/bin/sed -e '/perl(List::Util)/'
/usr/bin/sed: -e expression #1, char 18: missing command
I recommend to remove the macro and %filter_setup macro. There is no reason to
remove non-existing run-time List::Util.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Regexp-Grammars.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021-2.fc19.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 16:54
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6299 Aug 20 05:55
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 633 Aug 20 05:55
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 12 16:54
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 394 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_IP4.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3947 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_LaTeXish.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1871 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_LaTeXish_dump.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1234 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_Lucene_query.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 705 Aug 30 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_calc.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1633 Apr 20 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_calc_class.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1207 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_calc_inline.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 644 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_calc_list.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1272 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_calc_list_autoactions.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1278 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_calc_list_inline.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 457 May 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_debug.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1673 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_error.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1755 Nov 2 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_error_non_backtracking.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1086 Aug 24 2009
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_flattening.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 457 Mar 2 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_hash.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 519591 Nov 26 2009
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_hash_lexicon.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1662 Oct 26 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_hash_lookup_generated.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1783 Oct 26 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_hash_lookup_hardcoded.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1538 Oct 26 2011
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_hash_lookup_hashrule.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 868 Mar 2 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021/demo/demo_hash_symtab.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1348 Apr 5 2011
[Bug 845221] Review Request: ilbc - Internet Low Bitrate Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221
--- Comment #10 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
LEGEND: X=Met, !=Not met, ?=Not a blocker but should be fixed
=
[X] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:review $ rpmlint ilbc*rpm
ilbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec - codex, code, codes
ilbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbit - knit, kit, bit
ilbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbps - bps, kips, k bps
ilbc.src: W: no-url-tag
ilbc.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
dekkers-libilbc-upstream-1.1.1-9-g88cd161.tar.gz
ilbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec - codex, code,
codes
ilbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbit - knit, kit, bit
ilbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbps - bps, kips, k bps
ilbc.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
ilbc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ilbc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
ilbc-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C development files for ilbc
ilbc-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
ilbc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
[X] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[X] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[X] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[!] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
No files are marked as %doc, though the package needs to provide at least the
COPYING file and mark it as %doc
[X] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[?] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
The Source0 field isn't a URL. It should point to the location where someone
could download the upstream source tarball. See the rpmlint output above.
[X] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[X] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[X] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[X] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[X] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
[X] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
[X] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
[X] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[19]
[X] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other
[Bug 834070] Review Request: perl-qpid - Perl bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-09-12 11:36:15 --- Comment #25 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- Thank you, Jon and Peter! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #6 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com --- Upstream made some modifications based on feedback. https://github.com/openshift/crankcase/pull/467 I've packaged the latest version that includes these changes: Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin-port-proxy-0.2.3-1.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 852914] python-rackspace-monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914 --- Comment #7 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com --- SPEC: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rackspace-monitoring.spec SRPM: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rackspace-monitoring-0.3.1-5.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 856719] New: Review Request: python-cinderclient - Python API and CLI for OpenStack cinder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856719 Bug ID: 856719 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-cinderclient - Python API and CLI for OpenStack cinder Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: p...@draigbrady.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/cinder/python-cinderclient.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/cinder/python-cinderclient-0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This is a client for the OpenStack cinder API. There's a Python API (the cinderclient module), and a command-line script (cinder). Each implements 100% of the OpenStack cinder API. Fedora Account System Username: pbrady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856722] New: Review Request: openstack-cinder - OpenStack Volume service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856722 Bug ID: 856722 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: openstack-cinder - OpenStack Volume service Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: p...@draigbrady.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/cinder/openstack-cinder.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/cinder/openstack-cinder-2012.2-0.1.f3.fc18.src.rpm Description: OpenStack Volume (codename Cinder) provides services to manage and access block storage volumes for use by Virtual Machine instances. Fedora Account System Username: pbrady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851734] Review Request: perl-Regexp-Grammars - Add grammatical parsing features to perl regular expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851734 --- Comment #4 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- Updated to address suggestions from the review: Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Regexp-Grammars.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.021-3.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 854837] inkscape-sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 854837] inkscape-sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.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 854837] inkscape-sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/inkscape-sozi-12.05-7.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 856153] Review Request: python-django-openstack-auth - Django authentication backend for OpenStack Keystone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856153
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-django-openstack-auth.src: I: checking
python-django-openstack-auth.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend -
backed, back end, back-end
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pluggable - plug gable, plug-gable, plugged
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
backend - backed, back end, back-end
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
contrib - cont rib, cont-rib, contribute
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/django_openstack_auth/1.0.2 (timeout 10 seconds)
python-django-openstack-auth.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django_openstack_auth/django_openstack_auth-1.0.2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-django-openstack-auth.noarch: I: checking
python-django-openstack-auth.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backend
- backed, back end, back-end
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pluggable - plug gable, plug-gable, plugged
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
backend - backed, back end, back-end
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
contrib - cont rib, cont-rib, contribute
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-django-openstack-auth.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/django_openstack_auth/1.0.2 (timeout 10 seconds)
python-django-openstack-auth.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django_openstack_auth/django_openstack_auth-1.0.2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Nothing of interest.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
BSD
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
84e7090cd803b42804cb63c2a4bb6e545b9a6a00a60c91e010a124c78b419cc2
django_openstack_auth-1.0.2.tar.gz
84e7090cd803b42804cb63c2a4bb6e545b9a6a00a60c91e010a124c78b419cc2
django_openstack_auth-1.0.2.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug
[Bug 748450] Review Request: celt0110 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748450 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Any news...? Your package is almost fine, please fix the mentioned issues, I will approve it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736870] Review Request: netcdf4-python - Python/numpy interface to netCDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736870
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Bytecode issue is with rpmlint, see Bug 845972
Yes, indeed. Just tested the same files with an updated rpmlint, and the error
message doesn't appear anymore.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
MIT
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
57f8d598521cc5bce90ad70a4df5dcf4947e8ab0252e6803e272547d7910e97b
netCDF4-1.0fix1.tar.gz
57f8d598521cc5bce90ad70a4df5dcf4947e8ab0252e6803e272547d7910e97b
netCDF4-1.0fix1.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must
[Bug 823102] Review Request: 0ad-data - The Data Files for 0 AD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823102 --- Comment #13 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 612208 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=612208action=edit cgtextures query email -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #14 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 612209 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=612209action=edit cgtextures response email -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845221] Review Request: ilbc - Internet Low Bitrate Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221 --- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Added COPYING and README as %doc * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/ilbc.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/ilbc-1.1.1-3.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 844013] Review Request: openshift-origin-broker - OpenShift Origin broker components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844013 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-10.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 openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-10.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-13857/openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-10.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 851702] Review Request: python-acoustid - Python bindings for Chromaprint acoustic fingerprinting and the Acoustid API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851702 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-acoustid-0.7-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856099] Review Request: python-django-appconf - A helper class for handling configuration defaults of packaged apps gracefully
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856099 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-appconf-0.5-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856217] Review Request: quearcode - A tool for creating QR Codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856217 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- quearcode-0.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855561] Review Request: mediawiki119-RSS - Displays one or more RSS feeds on a wiki page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855561 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mediawiki119-RSS-2.16-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 845057] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive - Only use Sub::Exporter if you need it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive-0.001006-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-12 15:28:39 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 845057] Review Request: perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive - Only use Sub::Exporter if you need it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Sub-Exporter-Progressive-0.001006-1.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 783656] Review Request: python-pybloomfiltermmap - A Bloom filter (bloomfilter) for Python built on mmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783656 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pybloomfiltermmap-0.3.2-1.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 736870] Review Request: netcdf4-python - Python/numpy interface to netCDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736870 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: netcdf4-python Short Description: Python/numpy interface to netCDF Owners: orion Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 el5 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 736870] Review Request: netcdf4-python - Python/numpy interface to netCDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736870 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | 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 736870] Review Request: netcdf4-python - Python/numpy interface to netCDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736870 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
