[Bug 851808] Review Request: compiz-bcop - Compiz option code generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851808
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from leigh scott ---
Approved
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: 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 Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[ ]: 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.
[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
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: compiz-bcop-0.8.8-3.fc17.noarch.rpm : /usr/share/pkgconfig/bcop.
[Bug 851808] Review Request: compiz-bcop - Compiz option code generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851808 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: compiz-bcop Short Description: Compiz option code generator Owners: raveit65 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 853514] Review Request: rubygem-clouddb - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud DB service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853514 Guillermo Gómez changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853514] Review Request: rubygem-clouddb - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud DB service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853514 --- Comment #3 from Guillermo Gómez --- links? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854386] Review Request: rubygem-openstack-quantum-client - Ruby openstack quantum Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854386 Guillermo Gómez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||guillermo.go...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|guillermo.go...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Guillermo Gómez --- I'll 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 861591] New: Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 Bug ID: 861591 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/1/openteacher.spec RPMS URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/1/openteacher-2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: OpenTeacher has the following features: - Smart question asking and interval training - Think answer, shuffle answer and repeat answer input modes - Easy symbol, Greek and Cyrillic input - Read and write T2K (Teach2000), WRTS and read ABBYY Lingvo Tutor files - Save and open your online WRTS lists - Print your word lists - Available in different languages Fedora Account System Username: echevemaster # rpmlint SRPMS ## openteacher.src: I: checking openteacher.src: I: checking-url http://www.openteacher.org (timeout 10 seconds) openteacher.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/openteacher/2.x/2.3/+download/openteacher-2.3-source.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # rpmlint RPMS ## rpmlint -v openteacher-2.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm openteacher.noarch: I: checking openteacher.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.openteacher.org (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint Spec rpmlint -v openteacher.spec openteacher.spec: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/openteacher/2.x/2.3/+download/openteacher-2.3-source.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji Rawhide Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539729 Koji f18 build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539745 Koji f17 Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539758 Koji f16 Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539771 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825347] Review Request: jersey - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825347 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|859114 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859114] Review Request: grizzly - Java NIO Server Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859114 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|825347 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825347] Review Request: jersey - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825347 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||859114 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859114] Review Request: grizzly - Java NIO Server Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859114 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||825347 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853514] Review Request: rubygem-clouddb - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud DB service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853514 --- Comment #4 from Guillermo Gómez --- I tried to install rubygem-clouddb using gem command in a mock and found it uses ffi. The actual rubygem-clouddb is not listed. Missing BuildRequire from upstream as i see. gem list does not list clouddb after rpm installation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853514] Review Request: rubygem-clouddb - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud DB service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853514 --- Comment #5 from Guillermo Gómez --- Actually the gem not being listed issue is because of wrong location of the files, just remove the unnecesary macros. Test if rubygem-ffi is really needed at runtime (it was used during gem install clouddb in my workstation). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861591] Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 Luis Bazan changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bazanlui...@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 854386] Review Request: rubygem-openstack-quantum-client - Ruby openstack quantum Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854386
--- Comment #3 from Guillermo Gómez ---
1) Unneeded macros, those are provided by rubygems-devel, remove please.
%global gem_dir /usr/share/rubygems
%global gem_instdir %{gem_dir}/gems/%{gem_name}-%{version}
%global gem_docdir %{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version}
%global gem_libdir %{gem_instdir}/lib
also, they point to wrong locations for the files.
2) Source0:
https://rubygems.org/downloads/openstack-quantum-client-0.1.5.gem
Please use macros for name and version, sample:
Source0: http://rubygems.org/downloads/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
3) BuildArch tag repeated in main pkg and doc subpkg. doc subpkg inherits the
tag from main declaration. Remove the latest BuildArch tag please.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854345] Review Request: smartsim - Digital logic circuit design and simulation package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854345 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851808] Review Request: compiz-bcop - Compiz option code generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851808 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Unretired devel, please submit a Package Change for f18 and f17. 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 861610] New: Review Request: mimepull - MIME streaming extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861610 Bug ID: 861610 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: mimepull - MIME streaming extension Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mimepull.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mimepull-1.8-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Provides a streaming API to access attachments parts in a MIME message. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851808] Review Request: compiz-bcop - Compiz option code generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851808 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Package Change Request == Package Name: compiz-bcop New Branches: f17 f18 Owners: raveit65 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 832953] Review Request: Syntastic - A syntax checker for programming language in vim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832953 MERCIER Jonathan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832953] Review Request: Syntastic - A syntax checker for programming language in vim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832953 MERCIER Jonathan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | 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 861591] Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria --- desktop-file-install solved ### Corrected spec && SRPM ### Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/2/openteacher.spec RPMS URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/2/openteacher-2.3-2.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint -v openteacher.spec openteacher.spec: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/openteacher/2.x/2.3/+download/openteacher-2.3-source.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v openteacher-2.3-2.fc17.src.rpm openteacher.src: I: checking openteacher.src: I: checking-url http://www.openteacher.org (timeout 10 seconds) openteacher.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/openteacher/2.x/2.3/+download/openteacher-2.3-source.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v openteacher-2.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm openteacher.noarch: I: checking openteacher.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.openteacher.org (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji Rawhide Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539862 Koji f18 build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539864 Koji f17 Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539868 Koji f16 Build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4539866 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825347] Review Request: jersey - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825347 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||861610 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861610] Review Request: mimepull - MIME streaming extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861610 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||825347 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825347] Review Request: jersey - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825347 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.14/jersey.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.14/jersey-1.14-1.fc16.src.rpm - enabled test-framework and contribs modules -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861591] Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 Luis Bazan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856238] Review Request: scratch - Programming language learning environment for stories, games, music and art
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856238 --- Comment #11 from Matthew Miller --- Also: looks like all of the plugins except Unicode are included in Squeak VM 4.10.2.2593 and newer. (And possibly the Unicode support is also covered.) So, if we can get newer squeak-vm (bug #861633), that will significantly simplify this package *and* fix the sound probem. (The whole thing coudl be made noarch, and the scratch-image subpackage could be combined back into main package, and probably i18n as well. Then we'd just have the main package plus the three CC-BY-SA help, media, and projects subpackages.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861591] Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 --- Comment #2 from Luis Bazan --- * Name follows the naming guidelines * License is GPLv3 in spec and in code * License files included in package * Spec file is legible * Source matches upstream * No locale files * No C libraries * No bundled libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns all directories it creates * Does not have duplicate files * Macros used consistently * %doc is OK README COPYING NEW * All filenames valid UTF-8 * builds in koji * Permissions on files set properly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861591] Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 --- Comment #3 from Luis Bazan --- please add the patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857180] Review Request: gnome-clocks - Clock application designed for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857180 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Michael Scherer --- Seems good for me, I didn't test on F18/F19 for now, but i think that it should work fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861591] Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 --- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Created attachment 619141 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=619141&action=edit Fix version in setup.py and fix typo in desktop 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 849545] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes - Bayesian prediction of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849545 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer --- Seems to be good, approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857180] Review Request: gnome-clocks - Clock application designed for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857180 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Yanko Kaneti --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-clocks Short Description: Clock application designed for GNOME 3 Owners: bochecha yaneti Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 --- Comment #16 from Michael Scherer --- There is bundled library : http://code.google.com/p/inih/ ( and I think draw.h come from dmenu as well ). Could you please open a ticket with fesco to have a execption for this ? ( as I cannot approve it without this, I guess given the size of the library, the expection should be granted ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211
--- Comment #17 from Michael Scherer ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Package issues:
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
There is a bundled copy of inih library
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/852211-dunst/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (knopw
[Bug 859914] Rename Review Request: lato-fonts - A sanserif typeface family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859914 --- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity --- Many thanks for your review. (In reply to comment #1) > The description isn't fully canonical in terms of spelling. "letterforms" > has to be "letter forms". "Letterform" is commonly accepted, especially in typography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterform > The initial cleaning of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is obsolete for ages. Please remove > that line. I assume you don't want it to provide it for EPEL5, because the > to be retired google-lato-fonts also doesn't have an el5 branch. You're absolutely right! Fixed: http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/lato-fonts/lato-fonts.spec http://melmorabity.fedorapeople.org/packages/lato-fonts/lato-fonts-1.014-2.fc18.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 859914] Rename Review Request: lato-fonts - A sanserif typeface family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859914
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4540882
$ rpmlint -i -v *
lato-fonts.noarch: I: checking
lato-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tyPoland -> typo
land, typo-land, Poland
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
lato-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US letterforms ->
letter forms, letter-forms, letterbombs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
lato-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.latofonts.com/ (timeout 10
seconds)
lato-fonts.src: I: checking
lato-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tyPoland -> typo land,
typo-land, Poland
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
lato-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US letterforms -> letter
forms, letter-forms, letterbombs
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
lato-fonts.src: I: checking-url http://www.latofonts.com/ (timeout 10 seconds)
lato-fonts.src: I: checking-url http://www.latofonts.com/download/LatoOFL.zip
(timeout 10 seconds)
lato-fonts.spec: I: checking-url http://www.latofonts.com/download/LatoOFL.zip
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
OK so far.
-
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.
OFL
[+] 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 *
c4e15b067630f7050e01e8ff7399d1255a252e9c51706561ecc63907d1efbe7c
LatoOFL.zip
c4e15b067630f7050e01e8ff7399d1255a252e9c51706561ecc63907d1efbe7c
LatoOFL.zip.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. Execu
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- mate-settings-daemon-1.4.0-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-settings-daemon-1.4.0-5.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 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #41 from Taunus --- The cores show up properly after reboot/relogin. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858025] python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4541185
$ rpmlint -i -v *(none):
python-django-helpdesk.src: I: checking
python-django-helpdesk.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/rossp/django-helpdesk (timeout 10 seconds)
python-django-helpdesk.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-helpdesk/django-helpdesk-0.1.7b.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-django-helpdesk.noarch: I: checking
python-django-helpdesk.noarch: I: checking-url
https://github.com/rossp/django-helpdesk (timeout 10 seconds)
python-django-helpdesk.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-helpdesk/django-helpdesk-0.1.7b.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
No issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
BSD
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
7aa9c715665cc3ade5333d9470834aab7cf12cf6cd7abf902d73c141ea3c05fe
django-helpdesk-0.1.7b.tar.gz
7aa9c715665cc3ade5333d9470834aab7cf12cf6cd7abf902d73c141ea3c05fe
django-helpdesk-0.1.7b.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
[Bug 860521] Review Request: mate-session-manager - MATE Desktop session manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860521 --- Comment #2 from Dan Mashal --- Totally forgot mate-common. 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 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 --- Comment #45 from John D. Ramsdell --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: datalog Short Description: A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog Owners: ramsdell Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: tim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860518] Review Request: mate-panel - MATE Desktop panel applets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860518 --- Comment #2 from Dan Mashal --- Thanks for the heads no on libnm-gtk-devel. Is there an alias for this in 17? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860518] Review Request: mate-panel - MATE Desktop panel applets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860518 --- Comment #3 from Dan Mashal --- heads up* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851808] Review Request: compiz-bcop - Compiz option code generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851808 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857180] Review Request: gnome-clocks - Clock application designed for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857180 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859914] Rename Review Request: lato-fonts - A sanserif typeface family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859914 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lato-fonts Short Description: A sanserif typeface family Owners: melmorabity Branches: f18 f17 f16 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 859914] Rename Review Request: lato-fonts - A sanserif typeface family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859914 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857180] Review Request: gnome-clocks - Clock application designed for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857180 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-09-29 15:35:44 --- Comment #14 from Yanko Kaneti --- Thanks Package built for rawhide and f18. Should probably go alongside in pycanberra's f18 update, or I'll wait for that to get to stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786249] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249 Russell Harrison changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Russell Harrison --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-puppet-lint Short Description: Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests Owners: rharrison Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860521] Review Request: mate-session-manager - MATE Desktop session manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860521 --- Comment #3 from Dan Mashal --- OK fixed. Please review. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-session-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-session-manager-1.4.0-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop session manager -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856114] Review Request: qxmpp - Qt XMPP Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856114 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- qxmpp-0.7.3-4.git95a225b.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qxmpp-0.7.3-4.git95a225b.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich ---
Apparently gpick is built twice here: In %build and in %install. Can you
avoid that?
The files section is usually located immediately before the changelog.
There are a couple of compiler warnings upstream should consider:
- cast to pointer from integer of different size
- comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions
- passing NULL to non-pointer argument
Make it "1*" instead of "1.*" for the manpage.
Please remove the version constraint on BR gtk2-devel. Every release of
Fedora has a version newer than that.
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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
there is such a file.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
Doesn't seem to build on PPC:
http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=721046&name=build.log
[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.
[!]: 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.
installer/License.txt
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/853775-gpick/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.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: 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
[Bug 786249] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854345] Review Request: smartsim - Digital logic circuit design and simulation package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854345 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854345] Review Request: smartsim - Digital logic circuit design and simulation package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854345 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- smartsim-1.2.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smartsim-1.2.1-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854345] Review Request: smartsim - Digital logic circuit design and simulation package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854345 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- smartsim-1.2.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smartsim-1.2.1-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854345] Review Request: smartsim - Digital logic circuit design and simulation package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854345 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- smartsim-1.2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smartsim-1.2.1-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861694] New: Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694 Bug ID: 861694 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: thinkfan - A simple fan control program Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mspauldin...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/thinkfan.spec SRPM URL: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/thinkfan-0.8.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A simple fan control program. Works with any Linux hwmon driver, especially with thinkpad_acpi. It is designed to eat as little CPU power as possible. Fedora Account System Username: madsa Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4542923 RPMLint Output: thinkfan.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hwmon -> Hmong thinkfan.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US thinkpad -> think pad, think-pad, thinkable thinkfan.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpi -> ac pi, ac-pi, CPI thinkfan.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hwmon -> Hmong thinkfan.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US thinkpad -> think pad, think-pad, thinkable thinkfan.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acpi -> ac pi, ac-pi, CPI thinkfan.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- mate-settings-daemon-1.4.0-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854345] Review Request: smartsim - Digital logic circuit design and simulation package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854345 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854345] Review Request: smartsim - Digital logic circuit design and simulation package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854345 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- smartsim-1.2.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849545] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes - Bayesian prediction of categories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849545 Mathieu Bridon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mathieu Bridon --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes Short Description: Bayesian prediction of categories Owners: bochecha Branches: devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
