[Bug 830784] Review Request: leiningen - Clojure project automation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830784 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(m...@zarb.org) --- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Sorry for the delay! The new maven2 (with maven-artifact and maven-settings) is currently being pushed to stable updates: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-12314/maven2-2.2.1-37.fc18 Meanwhile, it's now been added as a buildroot override, so you should be able to build Leiningen in Mock https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/override/edit?build=maven2-2.2.1-37.fc18 (or just download it and manually install it into the mock instance before then building Leiningen -- let me know if you need assistance) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857639] Review Request: duff - Quickly find duplicate files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria --- (In reply to comment #2) > Initial comments: > > * no need to > BuildRequires: glibc-devel > see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 > (glibc-devel is a dependency of gcc already) > > * please document the need for automake, autoconf, libtool Rex You're right, do not need any of these BuildRequires Sorry!! in the README Building Duff If you got this source tree from a Git repository then you will need to bootstrap the build environment using `bootstrap.sh'. Note that this script requires GNU autoconf, automake and gettext to run. Also note that running gettextize may cause a few duplicate entries in various build files. To remove these, use `git reset --hard`. If (or once) you have a `configure' script, go ahead and run it. No additional magic should be required. If it is, then that's a bug and should be reported. Corrected Spec and SRPM = Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/duff/2/duff.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/duff/2/duff-0.5.2-2.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint -i duff-0.5.2-2.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i duff-0.5.2-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827808] Review Request: python-larch - Python B-tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827808 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-larch-1.20120527-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-larch-1.20120527-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827808] Review Request: python-larch - Python B-tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827808 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-larch-1.20120527-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-larch-1.20120527-3.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827808] Review Request: python-larch - Python B-tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827808 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-larch-1.20120527-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-larch-1.20120527-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827808] Review Request: python-larch - Python B-tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827808 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847684] Review Request: mate-notification-daemon - Notification daemon for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847684 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- mate-notification-daemon-1.4.0-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-notification-daemon-1.4.0-6.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 847684] Review Request: mate-notification-daemon - Notification daemon for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847684 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- mate-notification-daemon-1.4.0-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-notification-daemon-1.4.0-6.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 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 --- Comment #4 from Dan Mashal --- Fixed. Please check it. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-settings-daemon.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-settings-daemon-1.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop settings daemon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827806] Review Request: cmdtest - Black-box testing for Unix command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827806 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- cmdtest-0.3-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmdtest-0.3-3.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827806] Review Request: cmdtest - Black-box testing for Unix command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827806 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- cmdtest-0.3-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmdtest-0.3-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827806] Review Request: cmdtest - Black-box testing for Unix command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827806 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- cmdtest-0.3-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmdtest-0.3-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827806] Review Request: cmdtest - Black-box testing for Unix command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827806 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853689] Review Request: libmateui - Libraries for MATE Desktop UI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853689 --- Comment #2 from Dan Mashal --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/libmateui.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/libmateui-1.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Libraries for MATE Desktop UI -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851975] Review Request: libmatecomponentui - Libraries for MATE Desktop ui components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851975 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Dan Mashal --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libmatecomponentui Short Description: Libraries for MATE Desktop ui Owners: vicodan rdieter Branches: f16 f17 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 823724] Review Request: github-cli - command-line interface for GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823724
--- Comment #7 from Adrian Alves ---
which way did u suggest?
%setup -qn %{name}-%{version}
which dir I unowned?
(In reply to comment #5)
> Just two quick comments:
>
> - -n %{name}-%{version} in %setup is not needed, this is the default.
> - You have an unowned directory,
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824703] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-selene - The Selene gnome-shell theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824703 --- Comment #3 from Adrian Alves --- Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/gnome-shell-theme-selene.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/gnome-shell-theme-selene-3.4.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Fixed (In reply to comment #2) > Any news...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851975] Review Request: libmatecomponentui - Libraries for MATE Desktop ui components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851975
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter ---
naming: ok
sources: ok
b4d97af4b7cbc15e51b0577d9e2aa327 libmatecomponentui-1.4.0.tar.xz
license: ok
scriptlets: ok
1. SHOULD clarify License with a comment, something like:
libmatecomponent library LGPLv2+, other items GPLv2+
2. SHOULD move
%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/libmatecomponentui/
to -devel
macros: ok
BuildRequies: ok
I see no review blockers, APPROVED.
please address items 1,2 prior to doing any official builds.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827649] Review Request: supercat - colorized cat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827649 --- Comment #13 from Adrian Alves --- What you mean? how I accomplish that? (In reply to comment #11) > Use a wildcard for the manpage compression because at the moment it's gz but > this can change in the future. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851975] Review Request: libmatecomponentui - Libraries for MATE Desktop ui components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851975 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter ---
naming: ok
sources: ok
9eebb9972d1759dd001ba78fe66bde09 mate-control-center-1.4.0.tar.xz
scriptlets: ok
1. licensing: there is a mixture of LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ sources, SHOULD simplify
to just:
License: GPLv2+
2. MUST omit all stuff under %{_datadir}/mime, except for anything matching
%{_datadir}/mime/packages/*.xml
that's generated content from scriptlets (and the current stuff you list would
conflict with shared-mime-info), see also item 3
3. MUST add mimeinfo-related scriptlets:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo
4. MUST add .desktop mime-related scriptlets:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
5. MUST drop not-needed
BuildRequires: gtk+-devel
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 853689] Review Request: libmateui - Libraries for MATE Desktop UI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853689
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter ---
Initial review:
naming: ok
sources: ok
c48f2213a0511c60c8811af503c60337 libmateui-1.4.0.tar.xz
scriptlets: not ok
1. MUST add ldconfig scriptlets to main pkg
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
2. -devel pkg dep on main MUST be arch'd use
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
3. SHOULD move
%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/libmateui/
to -devel
license: not ok
4. MUST set license tag
License: LGPLv2+
and include
%doc COPYING.LIB
in main pkg
5. MUST remove unneeded
BuildRequires: gtk+-devel
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853689] Review Request: libmateui - Libraries for MATE Desktop UI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853689 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 857639] Review Request: duff - Quickly find duplicate files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter --- Initial comments: * no need to BuildRequires: glibc-devel see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 (glibc-devel is a dependency of gcc already) * please document the need for automake, autoconf, libtool -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856175] Review Request: python-nose-xcover - Extends nose.plugins.cover to add Cobertura-style XML reports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856175 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Taking this for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856180] Review Request: python-nose-exclude - Exclude specific directories from nosetests runs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856180 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Taking this for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849380] Review Request: python-carbon - Back-end data caching and persistence daemon for Graphite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849380 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- Any news...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857309] Review Request: hash-slinger - Generate various DNS records such as RFC-4255 SSHFP and RFC-698 TLSA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857309 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to comment #3) > Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pwouters/hash-slinger/hash-slinger.spec > SRPM URL: > http://people.redhat.com/pwouters/hash-slinger/hash-slinger-2.1-1.fc17.src. > rpm > > * Fixed COPYING file and released 2.1 as upstream > * removed defattr line > > > Thanks! I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. ps I wasn't aware of this rfc until this review request. And right now I'm adding SSHFP records to all my domains with the help of this tool. Thanks for this handy utility! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857309] Review Request: hash-slinger - Generate various DNS records such as RFC-4255 SSHFP and RFC-698 TLSA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857309 --- Comment #3 from Paul Wouters --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pwouters/hash-slinger/hash-slinger.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pwouters/hash-slinger/hash-slinger-2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm * Fixed COPYING file and released 2.1 as upstream * removed defattr line Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839098] Review Request: python-flask-silk - Adds silk icons to your Flask application or module, or extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839098 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from pcpa --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-flask-silk Short Description: Adds silk icons to your Flask application or module, or extension Owners: pcpa Branches: 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 807432] Review Request: python-tate-bilinear-pairing - A Python 2/3 library for calculating Tate bilinear pairing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807432 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann --- As far as I can see, you are not in the packagers group. Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR. If you are not willing to maintain the package in Fedora, please let us know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839098] Review Request: python-flask-silk - Adds silk icons to your Flask application or module, or extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839098
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar ---
Since this package respect Fedora general and python specific guidelines, i
hereby approve it into Fedora Packages Collection
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[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).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 842410] Review Request: kupfer - An interface for quick and convenient access to applications and their documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842410 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann --- After some tests on my own machine, it works as expected. But admittedly, the package is still far from being good enough for inclusion in Fedora. Could be it is missing a mandatory runtime requirement. Probably I should remove the plugins subpackage and add the plugins to the base package, except the Thunar plugin, because it needs a folder which is provided by the thunar package itself. Moreover, is the Nautilus plugin still up-to-date? It seems to need something which is no longer available from newer Fedora releases (nautilus-2.x). I don't plan an EPEL package, that's why I think the files related to nautilus might be safely removed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: python-pottymouth - Transform unstructured, untrusted text to safe, valid XHTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856554 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|python-pottymouth - |Review Request: |Transform unstructured, |python-pottymouth - |untrusted text to safe, |Transform unstructured, |valid XHTML |untrusted text to safe, ||valid XHTML -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857639] Review Request: duff - Quickly find duplicate files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|duff - Quickly find |Review Request: duff - |duplicate files |Quickly find duplicate ||files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857180] Review Request: gnome-clocks - Clock application designed for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857180 --- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti --- Also this package definetely does not target F17, its very g-i dependent and I am not even sure that it will work on F18 without the very latest g-i/pygobject3/dependent-libs updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857180] Review Request: gnome-clocks - Clock application designed for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857180 --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti --- Thanks for the review. I've tried to address the issues in -2. I don't think pycanberra is meant as stable system wide python interface to libcanberra but more as a one-off bundled hepler. Upstram README says "A very basic (and incomplete) wrapper for libcanberra". Clocks includes it with "I do not particularly like this solution,...". So I've added the license and the readme from the pycanberra repo and install them as separate docs. I think the pycanberra license is LGPLv2 rather than 2+ If anyone wishes to package pycanberra in some form this could be revisited. Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-clocks/gnome-clocks.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-clocks/gnome-clocks-0.1.1-2.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 851859] Review Request: mana - Opensource 2D MMORPG platform client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851859 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- mana-0.6.1-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mana-0.6.1-5.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 851859] Review Request: mana - Opensource 2D MMORPG platform client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851859 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- mana-0.6.1-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mana-0.6.1-5.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 851859] Review Request: mana - Opensource 2D MMORPG platform client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851859 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- mana-0.6.1-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mana-0.6.1-5.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 851859] Review Request: mana - Opensource 2D MMORPG platform client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851859 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855656] Review Request: perl-Safe-Isa - Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855656 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851859] Review Request: mana - Opensource 2D MMORPG platform client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851859 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). halfline is not a valid FAS account and can be added later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827808] Review Request: python-larch - Python B-tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827808 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827806] Review Request: cmdtest - Black-box testing for Unix command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827806 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831878] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log collection tool for oVirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831878 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer --- Hi, could the url to the latest spec and srpm posted ( so I can run fedora-review on the bug, as there is no working url for srpm right now ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855656] Review Request: perl-Safe-Isa - Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855656 Iain Arnell changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Iain Arnell --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Safe-Isa Short Description: Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects Owners: iarnell Branches: f16 f17 f18 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 857524] Review Request: python-django-federated-login - Provides federated logins to django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857524 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer --- Oops, sorry, wrongly set the block -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857524] Review Request: python-django-federated-login - Provides federated logins to django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857524 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|python-django-federated-log |Review Request: |in |python-django-federated-log ||in - Provides federated ||logins to django projects -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 --- Comment #13 from Michael Scherer --- The srpm si no longer here, can you host it somewhere else ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849579] Review Request: perl-Statistics-Contingency - Calculate precision, recall, F1, accuracy, etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849579 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer --- Ok, seems to be good. 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 857180] Review Request: gnome-clocks - Clock application designed for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857180
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
Source contain a copy of pycanberra
https://github.com/psykoyiko/pycanberra/
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Pycanberra is LGPL v2+
[!]: Package functions as described.
Doesn't work on F17 ( maybe need a specific verison on F18 ? )
$ gnome-clocks
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gnomeclocks/app.py", line 417, in
do_startup
quit.set_attribute([("label", "s", _("Quit")),
AttributeError: 'MenuItem' object has no attribute 'set_attribute'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gnomeclocks/app.py", line 397, in
do_activate
self.win = Window(self)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gnomeclocks/app.py", line 58, in
__init__
self.embed = Embed(self.vbox)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gnomeclocks/widgets.py", line 395,
in __init__
self.set_use_layout_size(True)
AttributeError: 'Embed' object has no attribute 'set_use_layout_size'
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/857180-gnome-clocks/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in Amer
[Bug 848388] Review Request: liblognorm - Tool to normalize log data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848388
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Release: 2
Not using %dist during review is okay, but be aware of future trouble when
building the package for multiple dists.
> Summary: Tool to normalize log data
The library is not really "a tool". The pkgconfig file contains a good
description that could be used for a better %summary:
Description: fast samples-based log normalization library
* The pkgconfig file as is won't work flawlessly. It contains
Libs: -L${libdir} -llognorm -lee -lestr
which means a "Requires" dependency is missing in the file, or else one could
not link successfully. However, explicitly relinking with shared libee and
libestr should not be necessary when linking with liblognorm, so these two
linker options should be dropped.
Some of liblognorm's header files access libee/libestr headers, so clearly a
"Requires: libee-devel libestr-devel" is needed in the liblognorm-devel
package. Note that adding a dependency to the .pc file would result in
automatic RPM dependencies.
> %package devel
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> %package utils
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> %description utils
> The normalizer is the core of liblognorm, it's utility for normalizing
> log files.
s/it's/its/ ?
> %build
> make
"V=1 make" for more verbose output (compiler and linker options) in build log
would be nice. Plus (albeit this is just a small source project):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
> %install
> make install -p DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Option -p is very likely a mistake here as it is passed to "make" and is short
for "--print-data-base". Assumably, what you actually want is:
make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
> $ rpmls -p liblognorm-utils-0.3.4-2.t1.x86_64.rpm
> -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/normalizer
A very generic name, not in a special namespace, and almost caused a conflict
already:
# repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/normalize
normalize-0:0.7.7-6.fc17.x86_64
Upstream is highly encouraged to try to avoid using such generic names.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839098] Review Request: python-flask-silk - Adds silk icons to your Flask application or module, or extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839098 --- Comment #5 from pcpa --- Many thanks for the comment, and sorry that I asked for someone to review the package in "scitech at lists.fedoraproject.org" but now all is good as you took the bug for yourself :-) I created the ticket https://github.com/sublee/flask-silk/issues/1 asking for inclusion of LICENSE (and test.py) in the tarball. The files were 2 years old, so I also added them to the current package. Please rum fedora-review using rawhide for the mock build as I am submitting it for rawhide, or, assuming it will be approved, should I ask for a f17 and f18 branch? Asking because it is build requires of python-flask-autoindex, that is next :-) Update: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-silk.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/python-flask-silk-0.1.1-5.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 827810] Review Request: obnam - An easy, secure backup program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827810 --- Comment #14 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Updated: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/obnam.spec http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/admin/obnam-1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm I've requested Git branches for the remaining dependencies -- apologies for the delay, new job is leaving me with less free time than expected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854377] Review Request: mesa-libGLU - Mesa libGLU utility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854377 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kwiz...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- (In reply to comment #6) > Shouldn't this mesa-libGLU package have provides for libGLU and libGLU-devel > (in the devel package of course)? Same question twice. This broke lot of dependencies without it. Of course all of them could use BR: pkgconfig(glu) but then this will requires to modify all packages instead of only this one. (this would cost more). That modification would be a task for a proven packager. I will dislike to bug every sigle maintainer for such trivial administrative change. (but then this would need to be properly coodinated in the devel mailing list). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857639] duff - Quickly find duplicate files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Koji Build f16 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4486619 Koji Build f17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4486602 Koji Build f18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4486581 Koji Buil Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4486605 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857639] New: duff - Quickly find duplicate files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 Bug ID: 857639 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: duff - Quickly find duplicate files Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/duff/1/duff.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/duff/1/duff-0.5.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Duff is a command-line utility for quickly finding duplicates in a given set of files rpmlint -i duff-0.5.2-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -i duff-0.5.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 857524] python-django-federated-login
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857524 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added CC|pin...@pingoured.fr,|nott...@redhat.com, |socho...@redhat.com |package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|fedora-review |Package Review Assignee|socho...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- It would be nice that you use the correct template when created a review request. I fix the component, cc and assigned for this ticket. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827814] Review Request: plasma-mediacenter - A mediacenter user interface written with the Plasma framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827814 --- Comment #9 from Siddharth Sharma --- Changes done as per comment 7 Spec URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/plasma-mediacenter.spec SRPM URLhttp://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/plasma-mediacenter-0.8.90-4.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827806] Review Request: cmdtest - Black-box testing for Unix command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827806 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cmdtest Short Description: Black-box testing for Unix command line tools Owners: salimma Branches: el6 f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819951] Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating system develop/build/deploy tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819951 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|michel+...@sylvestre.me Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- (In reply to comment #10) > But I can't standardize it until I get more feedback about how it actually > works, and I can't get more feedback about how it actually works until it's > packaged. Given the hardcoded dependency is minimal as you said, I'll go ahead and start reviewing then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827808] Review Request: python-larch - Python B-tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827808 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks, sorry for the delay on this side too. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-larch Short Description: Python B-tree library Owners: salimma Branches: el6 f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839098] Review Request: python-flask-silk - Adds silk icons to your Flask application or module, or extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839098 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar --- Before the formal review: * request upstream to add the LICENSE file in the tarball (could wait next package release) * fix upstream url: http://github.com/sublee/flask-silk * most important, since the main content of this package is the Silk Icon which licensed under CC-By 2.5 or CC-By 3.0, the correct content of the License field should be: BSD and CC-By 3.0 (the no endorsement clause of the CC-By 3.0 is less likely to interfere with the BSD variant used by Flask projects) Point 1 will be lifted by requesting the modification (a mail or ticket would be enough), Points 2 & 3 are easy fixes to the spec. As soon as it's done, package review could go forward. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 Jasper St. Pierre changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Jasper St. Pierre --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-initial-setup Short Description: configure your desktop Owners: magcius mclasen halfline Branches: 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 839098] Review Request: python-flask-silk - Adds silk icons to your Flask application or module, or extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839098 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.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 853784] Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853784 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- tiled-0.8.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tiled-0.8.1-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853784] Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853784 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- tiled-0.8.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tiled-0.8.1-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853784] Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853784 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- tiled-0.8.1-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tiled-0.8.1-3.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830328] Review Request: gnome-initial-setup - configure your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328 Debarshi Ray changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Debarshi Ray --- +--+ | 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 853784] Review Request: tiled - Tiled Map Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853784 Erik Schilling changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-09-15 03:29:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
