[Bug 859271] Review Request: php-symfony2-OptionsResolver - Symfony2 OptionsResolver Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859271 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|rcol...@redhat.com |fed...@famillecollet.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859270] Review Request: php-symfony2-Filesystem - Symfony2 Filesystem Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859270 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|rcol...@redhat.com |fed...@famillecollet.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858106] Review Request: python-rospkg - Utilities for ROS package, stack, and distribution information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858106
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com ---
Review:
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue
[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[+] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[?] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
^^
It would be better to build in the build section using
%python setup.py build
and then only installing in the install section using
%python setup.py --skip-build
as described in the Python packaging guidelines here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file
It ensures that the different packaging stages happen in the correct sections
where they're supposed to.
[+] License
[+] License field in spec matches
[?] License file included in package
^^
I couldn't find a COPYING or LICENSE file. Please consider adding one if
possible
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[-] Sources match upstream md5sum:
Generated from github checkout. NA
[-] Package needs ExcludeArch
[+] BuildRequires correct
[-] Spec handles locales/find_lang
[-] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[-] Doc subpackage needed/used.
[+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
[+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
[+] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
[+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[+] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[+] No rpmlint output.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/python-rospkg.spec
./python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc17.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
../SPECS/python-rospkg.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
ros-rospkg-1.0.6-0-g8b7.tar.gz
python-rospkg.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ros-rospkg-1.0.6-0-g8b7.tar.gz
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$
[+] final provides and requires are sane:
== python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm ==
Provides:
python-rospkg = 1.0.6-1.fc19
Requires:
/usr/bin/python
python(abi) = 2.7
== python-rospkg-1.0.6-1.fc19.src.rpm ==
Provides:
Requires:
python-devel
python-setuptools-devel
python-sphinx
[ankur@ankur result]$
SHOULD Items:
[+] Should build in mock.
[+] Should build on all supported archs
[?] Should function as described.
^^
I haven't checked on this
[-] Should have sane scriptlets.
[-] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
[+] Should have dist tag
[+] Should package latest version
[-] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. I don't see any major issues. The building in %build section is the only
change required.
2. A cosmetic change would be to use something like
%{python_sitelib}/%[realname}-%{version}-py?.?egg-info
instead of
%{python_sitelib}/*egg-info
just for clarity.
Please make the small changes required, and I'll approve the package :)
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813842] Review Request: glfw , A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842
MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?
--- Comment #16 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com ---
I have use this: %cmake
then CFLAGS are set correctly
---
rpm --eval %cmake
CFLAGS=${CFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic} ; export
CFLAGS ;
CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic} ; export
CXXFLAGS ;
FFLAGS=${FFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
-I/usr/lib64/gfortran/modules} ; export FFLAGS ;
LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro } ; export LDFLAGS ;
/usr/bin/cmake \
-DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=ON \
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr \
-DINCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/include \
-DLIB_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/lib64 \
-DSYSCONF_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/etc \
-DSHARE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr/share \
%if lib64 == lib64
-DLIB_SUFFIX=64 \
%endif
-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON
---
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813842] Review Request: glfw , A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842 MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo? | --- Comment #17 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- Spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/glfw.spec SRPMS : http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/glfw-3.0-5.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 859068] Review Request: log4cplus - Logging Framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859068
--- Comment #1 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files devel section. This is OK if
packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), GPL (v2 or later) For detailed output of licensecheck
see file:
/home/thozza/tmp/log4cplus_review/859068-log4cplus/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
Note: Only applicable for EL-5
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: 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.
[Bug 859068] Review Request: log4cplus - Logging Framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859068 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- As for: [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: Apache (v2.0), GPL (v2 or later). There is only one file with license GPL (v2 or later): ltmain.sh The rest is licensed under Apache (v2.0). Maybe you could note this in the SPEC file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859193] Review Request: linuxptp - PTP implementation for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859193 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tho...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tho...@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 824703] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-selene - The Selene gnome-shell theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824703 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Please don't change the fedora-review flag, because you are not the reviewer. I set this back now no + and add 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 858239] Review Request: spec2scl - Convert RPM specfiles to be SCL ready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858239
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
OK, let's have a look at the package from a technical point of view:
-
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 *
e91ba96c47d112d2572258bb89eee0c03aff95afa0295c794831d48cc3fd25ec
spec2scl-0.3.1.tar.gz
e91ba96c47d112d2572258bb89eee0c03aff95afa0295c794831d48cc3fd25ec
spec2scl-0.3.1.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 NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
[Bug 858239] Review Request: spec2scl - Convert RPM specfiles to be SCL ready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858239 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: spec2scl Short Description: Convert RPM specfiles to be SCL ready Owners: bkabrda Branches: f18 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859193] Review Request: linuxptp - PTP implementation for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859193
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later)
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 824703] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-selene - The Selene gnome-shell theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824703 --- Comment #16 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 849579] Review Request: perl-Statistics-Contingency - Calculate precision, recall, F1, accuracy, etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849579 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Unsetting flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855701] Review Request: cabal-rpm - creates rpm spec files for Haskell Cabal packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855701 --- Comment #9 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 858239] Review Request: spec2scl - Convert RPM specfiles to be SCL ready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858239 --- Comment #9 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 859068] Review Request: log4cplus - Logging Framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859068 --- Comment #3 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #2) As for: [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: Apache (v2.0), GPL (v2 or later). There is only one file with license GPL (v2 or later): ltmain.sh The rest is licensed under Apache (v2.0). Maybe you could note this in the SPEC file. Inclusion of GPLv2 license shouldn't be needed because ltmain.sh is autogenerated by libtool and is not part of sources. Other issues should be fixed in this version: spec: http://atkac.fedorapeople.org/log4cplus.spec srpm: http://atkac.fedorapeople.org/log4cplus-1.1.0-0.2.rc10.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 832953] Review Request: Syntastic - A syntax checker for programming language in vim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832953 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com --- * file /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/autoload/syntastic/c.vim should go to syntastic-c subpackage probably * some minor trailing white characters are still present Otherwise it seems ok to me, thanks for your work! Pavel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859193] Review Request: linuxptp - PTP implementation for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859193 --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review! Updated srpm: http://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/linuxptp-0-0.2.20120920git6ce135.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 859068] Review Request: log4cplus - Logging Framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859068 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #3) Inclusion of GPLv2 license shouldn't be needed because ltmain.sh is autogenerated by libtool and is not part of sources. This is OK. Other issues should be fixed in this version: spec: http://atkac.fedorapeople.org/log4cplus.spec srpm: http://atkac.fedorapeople.org/log4cplus-1.1.0-0.2.rc10.fc17.src.rpm Checked the log4cplus-1.1.0-0.2.rc10.fc17.src.rpm and everything is fixed and seems OK to me. This package has been 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 856722] Review Request: openstack-cinder - OpenStack Volume service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856722 Pádraig Brady pbr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbr...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady pbr...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: openstack-cinder Please delete the master-patches git branch which I created by mistake. 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 859193] Review Request: linuxptp - PTP implementation for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859193 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #4) Thanks for the review! Updated srpm: http://mlichvar.fedorapeople.org/tmp/linuxptp-0-0.2.20120920git6ce135.fc17. src.rpm You're welcome. I checked the linuxptp-0-0.2.20120920git6ce135.fc17.src.rpm and SPEC file. All issues has been fixed. This package has been 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 856722] Review Request: openstack-cinder - OpenStack Volume service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856722 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.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 859193] Review Request: linuxptp - PTP implementation for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859193 Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: linuxptp Short Description: PTP implementation for Linux Owners: mlichvar 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 856111] Review Request: python-django-compressor - Compresses linked and inline JavaScript or CSS into single cached files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856111 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-django-compressor New Branches: f17 el6 Owners: mrunge -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856111] Review Request: python-django-compressor - Compresses linked and inline JavaScript or CSS into single cached files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856111 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added 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 859193] Review Request: linuxptp - PTP implementation for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859193 --- 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 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+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-django-appconf New Branches: f17 el6 Owners: mrunge -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-django-openstack-auth New Branches: f17 el6 Owners: mrunge -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795679] Review Request: python-flexmock - Testing library that makes it easy to create mocks, stubs and fakes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795679 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-flexmock New Branches: el6 Owners: bkabrda 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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #35 from Adrian Alves aal...@gmail.com --- Working on that new release -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824703] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-selene - The Selene gnome-shell theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824703 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 824703] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-selene - The Selene gnome-shell theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824703 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gnome-shell-theme-selene-3.4.0-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-theme-selene-3.4.0-5.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 859068] Review Request: log4cplus - Logging Framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859068 Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: log4cplus Short Description: Logging Framework for C++ Owners: atkac Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 824703] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-selene - The Selene gnome-shell theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824703 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gnome-shell-theme-selene-3.4.0-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-theme-selene-3.4.0-5.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 795679] Review Request: python-flexmock - Testing library that makes it easy to create mocks, stubs and fakes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795679 --- Comment #9 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 #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 856153] Review Request: python-django-openstack-auth - Django authentication backend for OpenStack Keystone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856153 --- 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 859068] Review Request: log4cplus - Logging Framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859068 --- Comment #6 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 858060] qpid-snmpd - SNMP agent for qpid broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858060 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856722] Review Request: openstack-cinder - OpenStack Volume service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856722 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- That can't be done AFAIK, just follow the retirement procedure for it. It shouldn't harm anything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858060] qpid-snmpd - SNMP agent for qpid broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858060 --- Comment #6 from Ernie eal...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qpid-snmpd Short Description: SNMP agent for Amqp qpid broker Owners: eallen mpierce Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: eallen -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858060] qpid-snmpd - SNMP agent for qpid broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858060 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- WARNING: eallen is not in the packager group. WARNING: mpierce is not a valid FAS account. WARNING: Couldn't parse package name out of bug summary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859032] Review Request: ghc-data-memocombinators - Combinators for building memo tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859032 Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||844150 (mate-desktop) --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Fixed build with mate-desktop-1.4.1-11, so you can use upstream sources 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 844150] Review Request: mate-desktop - Shared code among mate-panel, mate-session, caja, etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844150 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||853692 ||(mate-settings-daemon) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833623] Review Request: mingw-nettle - Cross-compiled low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833623 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kalevlem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Taking 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 858239] Review Request: spec2scl - Convert RPM specfiles to be SCL ready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858239 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-09-21 09:35:54 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833623] Review Request: mingw-nettle - Cross-compiled low level crytopgraphic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833623 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Fedora review of mingw-nettle-2.4-2.fc17.src.rpm 2012-09-21 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw-nettle-2.4-2.fc18.src.rpm \ mingw32-nettle-2.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm \ mingw64-nettle-2.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm \ mingw32-nettle-debuginfo-2.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm \ mingw64-nettle-debuginfo-2.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm mingw-nettle.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crytopgraphic - topographic, cartographic, photographic mingw-nettle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic - cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic mingw-nettle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto - crypt, crypts, crypt o mingw-nettle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolkits - toolkit, tool kits, tool-kits mingw32-nettle.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crytopgraphic - topographic, cartographic, photographic mingw32-nettle.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic - cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic mingw32-nettle.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto - crypt, crypts, crypt o mingw32-nettle.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolkits - toolkit, tool kits, tool-kits mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/arctwo.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/realloc.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/rsa-compat.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/blowfish.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/ctr.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/buffer.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/ripemd160.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/arcfour.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/nettle-meta.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/dsa.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/hmac.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/aes.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/mingw32-nettle-2.4/README mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/sha.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/md2.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/cast128.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/serpent.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/md4.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/base16.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/md5-compat.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/md5.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/macros.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/des.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/bignum.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/cbc.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/rsa.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/pgp.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/asn1.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/yarrow.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/twofish.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nettle/nettle-types.h mingw32-nettle.noarch: E:
[Bug 859193] Review Request: linuxptp - PTP implementation for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859193 Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-09-21 10:12:14 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810
--- Comment #8 from Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #6)
For example from one of my packages:
# Upstream does not provide tarballs.
# To generate:
# git clone
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/trace-cmd.git
# cd trace-cmd
# git archive --prefix=trace-cmd-%%{version}.%%{checkout}/ -o
trace-cmd-%%{version}.%%{checkout}.tar.gz %%{git_commit}
I like it. Stole it blatantly.
Secondly, the standard %{optflags} aren't used. In the same patch where you
drop the kernel includes, you could just as easily add $(CFLAGS) to the
Makefile and do make CFLAGS=%{optflags}
Thirdly, the debuginfo that is generated is useless - the binary is compiled
without -g.
Patch wasn't needed to fix these two. CFLAGS is already specified in the make
file and I can just pass CFLAGS=%{optflags} -DUSE_LINUX_PHC and it covers
both since optflags contains -g.
Updated:
Spec URL: http://jwboyer.fedorapeople.org/pub/ptpd-phc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jwboyer.fedorapeople.org/pub/ptpd-phc-2.1.0-0.1.20120921gitecca20.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 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950
--- Comment #39 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
gradle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
gradle.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency aqute-bndlib
gradle.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel
gradle.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
gradle.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/gradle/lib/guava-11.0.1.jar
/usr/share/java/guava.jar
many more dangling symlinks omitted here
gradle.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gradle
gradle.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest
/usr/share/gradle/lib/gradle-launcher-1.0.jar
[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 Buildroot is not present
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [1]
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[1]
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [2]
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
source sha1sum: b0ba4c333e600b28daa9938f0b775ed10d42745b gradle-1.0-src.zip
upstream sha1sum: b0ba4c333e600b28daa9938f0b775ed10d42745b gradle-1.0-src.zip
[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 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.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [3]
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [4]
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve
[Bug 859469] New: Review Request: nemo - File manager for Cinnamon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859469 Bug ID: 859469 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: nemo - File manager for Cinnamon Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/nemo/1/nemo.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/nemo/1/nemo-1.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Nemo is the file manager and graphical shell for the Cinnamon desktop that makes it easy to manage your files and the rest of your system. It allows to browse directories on local and remote filesystems, preview files and launch applications associated with them. It is also responsible for handling the icons on the Cinnamon desktop. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813842] Review Request: glfw , A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for clarifying the compiler flag issue.
Can you change
%cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr .
and
PREFIX=/usr
to use %{_prefix} instead of /usr?
Requires: xorg-x11-proto-devel is still missing - it owns /usr/include/GL which
is used by glfw-devel
With these two changes, APPROVED
Note you might want to remove this (debug?) line:
ls -l --color=auto %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859469] Review Request: nemo - File manager for Cinnamon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859469 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chat-to...@raveit.de Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chat-to...@raveit.de 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 847268] Review Request: girara - Simple user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847268 --- Comment #8 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- Thank you Mario. I removed el5 compatibility and added the Requires: line for the -devel package. new srpm: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/girara-0.1.3-5.fc16.src.rpm new spec: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/girara.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 813842] Review Request: glfw , A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842 --- Comment #19 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- I missed it also needs a Require: (not just Buildrequire) geany because it is installing files in /usr/share/geany -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847268] Review Request: girara - Simple user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847268 --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #8) I removed el5 compatibility ... In this case, the following parts of your latest spec are obsolete: - the BuildRoot tag - the initial cleaning of %buildroot in %install - the %clean section -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847268] Review Request: girara - Simple user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847268 --- Comment #10 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- My fault, thanks for the catch. new srpm: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/girara-0.1.3-6.fc16.src.rpm new spec: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/girara.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 856722] Review Request: openstack-cinder - OpenStack Volume service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856722 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openstack-cinder-2012.2-0.5.rc1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-cinder-2012.2-0.5.rc1.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 847794] Review Request: gl3n An OpenGL Mathematics library for D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847794
--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
Note: comments ver ysimilar to glfw.
The version seems better to be 0, as upstream has no versioning whatsoever. It
uses a soname of 1, but we don't know if that signifies a pre or post release
of version 1. I suggest gl3n-0.20120921-1
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: 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.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
See pkgconfig and geany and ldc Requires for the -devel package
Note: I filed rhbz#859492 for /usr/include/d being unowned.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
Why is the non-standard (unversioned) {_defaultdocdir}/%{name} used?
Perhaps after make install, remove those files and use %doc to put these
in the right place?
[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 License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
Note: Only applicable for EL-5
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot
[Bug 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810
--- Comment #9 from Jon Stanley jstan...@rmrf.net ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
[!]: 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
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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
[-]: 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. Licenses found:
BSD (2 clause) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/jstanley/review/ptpd-phc/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NOTE: This is a git checkout - see below for
verification
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[!]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[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
[Bug 859504] New: Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 Bug ID: 859504 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: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php/php-xcache/php-xcache.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-xcache-2.0.1-3.remi.src.rpm Description: XCache is a fast, stable PHP opcode cacher that has been tested and is now running on production servers under high load. It is tested (on linux) and supported on all of the latest PHP release. ThreadSafe is also perfectly supported. It overcomes a lot of problems that has been with other competing opcachers such as being able to be used with new PHP versions. Fedora Account System Username: remi Target: F17+, EPEL6+ I keep compatibility stuff to allow backport to older release and will work on fixing the EL-5 build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 --- Comment #10 from Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #9) Issues: [!]: 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 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions The package seems slightly schizophrenic in this regard :). I think that it would be useful on EPEL5, but it's half there and half not. It has a %defattr, but no BuildRoot. Pick one or the other (and I'd suggest the EPEL5 compatible one :D) I have no interest in doing anything with EPEL5 at all. Ever. If someone wishes to co-maintain this package on that branch then they can fix that up on the branch. [!]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. This is a daemon, and there's no systemd unit packaged for it. I'll look into this. [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. The changelog lacks versioning info. Erm. Right. Also, fix the rpmlint warnings about the non-standard group (I think it's looking for 'System Environment/Daemons' here. OK. I noted a lack of documentation or default config as well, though the help output is relatively sane. Yes, well upstream lacks that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 --- Comment #11 from Jon Stanley jstan...@rmrf.net --- (In reply to comment #10) I have no interest in doing anything with EPEL5 at all. Ever. If someone wishes to co-maintain this package on that branch then they can fix that up on the branch. Then the %defattr can be removed. I might be the sucker^Wperson interested in maintaining this in EPEL5 :) I noted a lack of documentation or default config as well, though the help output is relatively sane. Yes, well upstream lacks that. Yeah, and that's a fairly sad state of affairs :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847794] Review Request: gl3n An OpenGL Mathematics library for D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847794 --- Comment #2 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- /usr/lib64/libgl3n-ldc.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=0x0340c3c46d36d359c53b19d2d0caf9f03ebfa885, not stripped this also needs fixing, something going wrong with creating the debug package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 --- Comment #12 from Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #11) (In reply to comment #10) I have no interest in doing anything with EPEL5 at all. Ever. If someone wishes to co-maintain this package on that branch then they can fix that up on the branch. Then the %defattr can be removed. I might be the sucker^Wperson interested in maintaining this in EPEL5 :) Done. Upon further thinking, I'd check with RHEL before doing anything with this on EPEL[56]. It requires matching kernel functionality which is present in all of Fedora, but wasn't included upstream until the 3.0 kernel or there-abouts. OK, systemd unit file added. It even appears to work in my brief testing. rpmlint only warns about the source URL thing. Updated: Spec file: http://jwboyer.fedorapeople.org/pub/ptpd-phc.spec SRPM file: http://jwboyer.fedorapeople.org/pub/ptpd-phc-2.1.0-0.2.20120921gitecca20.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 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #36 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- OK; latest version is 0.8.9 For reference, here's my SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/nodejs.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/nodejs-0.8.9-1.fc17.src.rpm Currently, there are a few known issues: - libuv bundled - libev bundled - http_parser partly unbundled, (needs to be linked against systems http_parser) [mrunge@turing ~]$ ldd /usr/bin/node linux-vdso.so.1 = (0x7fffcecdb000) libz.so.1 = /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00342800) libv8.so.3 = /lib64/libv8.so.3 (0x00342900) libssl.so.10 = /lib64/libssl.so.10 (0x00343740) libcrypto.so.10 = /lib64/libcrypto.so.10 (0x00343480) librt.so.1 = /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x003427c0) libdl.so.2 = /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00342740) libstdc++.so.6 = /lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x003432c0) libm.so.6 = /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00342780) libgcc_s.so.1 = /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00342a40) libpthread.so.0 = /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00342700) libc.so.6 = /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x003426c0) libicui18n.so.48 = /lib64/libicui18n.so.48 (0x00344860) libicuuc.so.48 = /lib64/libicuuc.so.48 (0x003443a0) libicudata.so.48 = /lib64/libicudata.so.48 (0x00344520) libgssapi_krb5.so.2 = /lib64/libgssapi_krb5.so.2 (0x00343600) libkrb5.so.3 = /lib64/libkrb5.so.3 (0x00343680) libcom_err.so.2 = /lib64/libcom_err.so.2 (0x003434c0) libk5crypto.so.3 = /lib64/libk5crypto.so.3 (0x003436c0) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00342680) libkrb5support.so.0 = /lib64/libkrb5support.so.0 (0x00343700) libkeyutils.so.1 = /lib64/libkeyutils.so.1 (0x003435c0) libresolv.so.2 = /lib64/libresolv.so.2 (0x00342880) libselinux.so.1 = /lib64/libselinux.so.1 (0x00342840) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 Jon Stanley jstan...@rmrf.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Jon Stanley jstan...@rmrf.net --- OK, this package is APPROVED. One minor nit that you might want to fix in the systemd unit file though - there's no way to configure in there. I would add an EnvironmentFile and use something like /usr/bin/ptpd2 $OPTIONS as the ExecStart. But the admin can override the unit file if he wants to as well, so I wouldn't think that this would be a blocker, more of a style thing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813842] Review Request: glfw , A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842 --- Comment #20 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- Spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/glfw.spec SRPMS : http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/glfw-3.0-6.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 847794] Review Request: gl3n An OpenGL Mathematics library for D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847794
--- Comment #3 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com ---
I do not know the reason exactly but stripping process do not works with D
shared library.
For this reason is used: %global debug_package %{nil}
That is same for haskell by example
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847794] Review Request: gl3n An OpenGL Mathematics library for D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847794 --- Comment #4 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- SPEC: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gl3n.spec SRPM: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gl3n-0.20120813-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 --- Comment #40 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle/release/1.0-5/gradle.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle/release/1.0-5/gradle-1.0-5.fc16.src.rpm - Removed bundled jars - Fixed unowned directories - Used symlinks in %%_datadir/gradle [4] Patches use names generated from git, which do not follow the Fedora guidelines. - changed patches names i havent a link for see the guidelines change Other Notes: * Is there are reason within the application that LICENSE / NOTICE / etc. are in /usr/share/gradle rather than %docdir ? yes , are required by the gradle gui application -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #41 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- hi gradle dont work with symlinks in %%_datadir/gradle + mkdir -p gradlehome + gradle --debug -g /home/gil/rpmbuild/BUILD/groovy-2.0.2/gradlehome -b /home/gil/rpmbuild/BUILD/groovy-2.0.2/buildSrc/build.gradle Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/gradle/api/internal/classpath/ModuleRegistry at org.gradle.launcher.GradleMain.main(GradleMain.java:24) Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: org.gradle.api.internal.classpath.ModuleRegistry at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:366) at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:355) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:354) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:423) at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:308) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:356) ... 1 more errore: Stato d'uscita errato da /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0MXR4R (%build) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847268] Review Request: girara - Simple user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847268
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4512420
$ rpmlint -i -v *
girara.src: I: checking
girara.src: I: checking-url http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/ (timeout 10
seconds)
girara.src: I: checking-url
http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/download/girara-0.1.3.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
girara.i686: I: checking
girara.i686: I: checking-url http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/ (timeout 10
seconds)
girara.x86_64: I: checking
girara.x86_64: I: checking-url http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/ (timeout 10
seconds)
girara-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
girara-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/
(timeout 10 seconds)
girara-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
girara-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/
(timeout 10 seconds)
girara-devel.i686: I: checking
girara-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/ (timeout 10
seconds)
girara-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
girara-devel.x86_64: I: checking
girara-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/ (timeout
10 seconds)
girara-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
girara.spec: I: checking-url
http://pwmt.org/projects/girara/download/girara-0.1.3.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
No real issues 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.
zlib
[+] 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 *
3cc2b56356a4be2f4e47638b697d830408a870cf37e85d36d9d2b591f86748af
girara-0.1.3.tar.gz
3cc2b56356a4be2f4e47638b697d830408a870cf37e85d36d9d2b591f86748af
girara-0.1.3.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 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
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 --- Comment #5 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- $ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/SDL2-2.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/SDL2-2.0.0-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/SDL2-devel-2.0.0-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/SDL2-debuginfo-2.0.0-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm SDL2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) multi - mufti, multiple SDL2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr multi - mufti, multiple SDL2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) multi - mufti, multiple SDL2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr multi - mufti, multiple SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/SDL2.spec srpms: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/SDL2-2.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848139] Review Request: maliit-framework - Input method framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848139 Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@laptop.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@laptop.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 --- Comment #42 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle/release/1.0-6/gradle.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle/release/1.0-6/gradle-1.0-6.fc16.src.rpm - Revert symlinks from %%_datadir/gradle to %%_javadir/gradle cause: gradle dont work with symlinks in %%_datadir/gradle if this solution isn't acceptable, (can) remove gradle symlinks in _javadir/... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 825599] Review Request: samdump2 - Retrieves syskey and extracts hashes from Windows SAM hive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- samdump2-3.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857524] Review Request: python-django-federated-login - Provides federated logins to django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857524 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-federated-login-0.3.0-3.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 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950
--- Comment #43 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com ---
It looks like /usr/share/gradle/lib/gradle-launcher-1.0.jar is special and
cannot be moved, because the launcher inspects its own _dereferenced_ file path
to determine where to find other jars. The others can be in javadir.
A style note about your latest spec. You have a lot of %dir entries for
directories where recursing them is fine. So this:
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/lib
%{_datadir}/%{name}/lib/*
could simply be:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/lib
This is not a major thing, but would make the spec file cleaner.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851891] Review Request: wiki2beamer - Converts a simple wiki-like syntax to complex LaTeX beamer code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851891
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Would be nice to have a direct download link for the spec, as follows:
http://git.dyroff.org/?p=sdyroff-rpms.git;a=blob_plain;f=SPECS/wiki2beamer.spec;h=103ec5270dfc19bfee8f47b345796fe2fbd628fd;hb=72206497496f45f965646753b8e6fdbdae57e1da
Some initial comments:
A Release: 0 doesn't exist. Use Release: 1%{?dist} for your first release
of a certain upstream version and bump it each time you change anything.
The initial cleaning of buildroot in %install and the %clean section are
obsolete, unless you want to provide your package for EPEL5.
Perhaps you should rename fdl.txt to LICENSE-DOCS or anything similar to make
it somewhat clearer what this file refers to. However, it is not forced by the
packaging guidelines, just an idea.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #7) Yes, the nautilus plugin is removed in upstream git. Thanks for that info. I will provide new spec and srpm soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845763] Review Request: gdevilspie - Interface to the devilspie window matching daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845763 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-09-21 17:24:24 --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Sorry, I'm no longer willing to maintain this package. After some tests with other tools, I don't need gdevilspie or even devilspie anymore. The files (spec and srpm) will remain at the current locations. Feel free to reuse them for your own review request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848139] Review Request: maliit-framework - Input method framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848139 Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org --- rpmlint: maliit-framework.src:118: W: macro-in-comment %postun maliit-framework.src:127: W: macro-in-comment %postun maliit-framework.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libmaliit-connection-0.80.so.0.1.0 exit@GLIBC_2.0 maliit-framework.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/maliit-framework-0.92.4/LICENSE.LGPL maliit-framework.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary maliit-server maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/maliit-plugins-quick/plugin-factory/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/maliit-plugins-quick/plugin-factory/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/examples/apps/widgetproperties/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/examples/apps/widgetproperties/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_maliit_settings/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_maliit_settings/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/maliit-plugins-quick/input-method/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/maliit-plugins-quick/input-method/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_mkeyoverride/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_mkeyoverride/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_minputcontextplugin/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_minputcontextplugin/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/bbt_connection/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/bbt_connection/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_mimapplication/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_mimapplication/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/examples/plugins/cxx/override/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/examples/plugins/cxx/override/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/dummyimplugin2/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/dummyimplugin2/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/sanitychecks/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/sanitychecks/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_selfcompositing/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_selfcompositing/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/examples/apps/twofields/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/examples/apps/twofields/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_passthroughserver/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_passthroughserver/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_mattributeextensionmanager/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_mattributeextensionmanager/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ft_exampleplugin/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ft_exampleplugin/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/maliit-framework-0.92.4/tests/ut_minputmethodquickplugin/.moc maliit-framework-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 --- Comment #44 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle/release/1.0-7/gradle.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gradle/release/1.0-7/gradle-1.0-7.fc16.src.rpm - Revert symlinks in %%_javadir, exception for gradle-launcher -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744066] Review Request: vide - programmer's terminal for vim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744066 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Your package contains a systemd service file which is activated by dbus. See the packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_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 848142] Review Request: maliit-plugins - Input method plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848142 Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@laptop.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@laptop.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852330] Review Request: hibernate - Relational persistence and query service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852330 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate/4.1.7.Final /hibernate.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate/4.1.7.Final /hibernate-4.1.7-1.fc16.src.rpm - update to 4.1.7.Final -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852330] Review Request: hibernate - Relational persistence and query service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852330 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate/4.1.7.Final/hibernate.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate/4.1.7.Final/hibernate-4.1.7-1.fc16.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 848142] Review Request: maliit-plugins - Input method plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848142 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org --- rpmlint: maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/KeyboardUiConstants.js maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/EnglishPortrait.qml maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/DevStub.js maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/meegotouch-keyboard-function-key.svg maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/FunctionKey.qml maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/meegotouch-keyboard-key.svg maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/RussianPortrait.qml maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/Popper.qml maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/popper.svg maliit-plugins.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/maliit/plugins/org/nemomobile/LandscapeVKB.qml maliit-plugins.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary maliit-keyboard-viewer maliit-plugins.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary maliit-keyboard-benchmark 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings. I think you should chmod those scripts to 644 because they aren't executable items. License: This looks like a BSD-licensed codebase to me. Will continue the review tomorrow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853689] Review Request: libmateui - Libraries for MATE Desktop UI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853689 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libmateui-1.4.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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 835015] Review Request: xmonad-log-applet - Panel applet to display Xmonad log information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835015 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-21 20:11:52 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xmonad-log-applet-2.0.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858106] Review Request: python-rospkg - Utilities for ROS package, stack, and distribution information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858106 --- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- I've made the two updates to the package, you can find it at: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rospkg/python-rospkg.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rospkg/python-rospkg-1.0.6-2.fc17.src.rpm Upstream doesn't bundle a COPYING or LICENSE file, but I can file a bug and ask them to do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(maths...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #15 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Ben, when you get your Internet connection back, please take a look -- thanks in advance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #45 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com --- This looks okay now. APPROVED. (I don't know what the procedure for this package is from here, since it's technically already in Fedora. You have my vote to replace the existing package with this one now, though.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830784] Review Request: leiningen - Clojure project automation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830784 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(m...@zarb.org) --- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Dependencies have landed; checked that mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 leiningen-1.7.1-3.fc19.src.rpm works Let me know when you can do the review? It'd be great to have this done soon. 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 833623] Review Request: mingw-nettle - MinGW package for nettle cryptographic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833623 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mingw-nettle - |mingw-nettle - MinGW |Cross-compiled low level|package for nettle |crytopgraphic library |cryptographic library Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com --- Thanks, Kalev. I will make those changes. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-nettle Short Description: MinGW package for nettle cryptographic library Owners: mooninite Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
