[Bug 858380] Review Request: Gluegen2 - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858380
--- Comment #10 from Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com ---
Hi Gil,
Spec URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/gluegen2.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/gluegen2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc17.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: davidcl
Updated thanks for the review.
* [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Done, I missed that
* gluegen2-doc contains function.h
It contains example files which can provide information about how is
managed a gluegen2 usage (which emit java files from C .h files).
* gluegen_devel_dir %{_datadir}/gluegen2-devel
Updated
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847513] Review Request: librasterlite - Support Raster Data Sources within a SpatiaLite DB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847513 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: librasterlite Short Description: Support Raster Data Sources within a SpatiaLite DB Owners: volter 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 717502] Review Request: i4uc - IDE for developing micro-controllers firmware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717502 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(germanrs@fedorapr ||oject.org) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838901] Review Request: autotest-framework - Framework for fully automated testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901 Martin Krizek mkri...@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 860518] Review Request: mate-panel - MATE Desktop panel applets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860518
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Thanks for the heads no on libnm-gtk-devel. Is there an alias for this in 17?
That would probably be a reasonable request.
You could try to work around it with an conditional (untested):
%if %{fedora} = 18
Buildrequires: libnm-gtk-devel
%else
Buildrequires: NetworkManager-gtk-devel
%endif
assuming they are compatible.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860146] Review Request: vsqlite++ - A C++ Wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860146 --- Comment #12 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- You also need to set fedora-cvs flag to '?' or noone will know you requested the SCM :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845689] Review Request: python-django-setuptest - python-django-setuptest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845689 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|python-django-setuptest |Review Request: ||python-django-setuptest - ||python-django-setuptest -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747031] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell bindings to bibutils, the bibliography conversion utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747031 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||861782 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861893] New: Review Request: libmongo-client - Alternative C driver for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861893 Bug ID: 861893 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: libmongo-client - Alternative C driver for MongoDB Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mbar...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mbartos.fedorapeople.org/libmongo-client.spec SRPM URL: http://mbartos.fedorapeople.org/libmongo-client-0.1.5-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Alternative C driver for MongoDB. Libmongo-client is meant to be a stable (API, ABI and quality alike), clean, well documented and well tested shared library, that strives to make the most common use cases as convenient as possible. Fedora Account System Username: mbartos Hi, there is a spec file and src.rpm file for libmongo-client, an alternative C driver for mongodb and I'd appreciate a review. Thanks, Milan Bartos -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826520] Review Request: hiera - A simple hierarchical database supporting plugin data sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #14 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Maybe http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#ruby_applications is
useful.
These guidelines also specify that ruby applications should be installed
into %{_datadir}
I don't think this is an application as such but a non-gem package with
a single executable.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Non-Gem_Packages
Other applications e.g puppet will run a 'require hiera'
In that case, the package should be named ruby-hiera [1] ...
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826520] Review Request: hiera - A simple hierarchical database supporting plugin data sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520 --- Comment #15 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- And you should also follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_ABI -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830587] Review Request: hiera-puppet - Puppet front-ends and back-ends for hiera
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830587 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Please name the package according to the guidelines [1] and use appropriate ruby(abi) [2] [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Naming_Guidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_ABI -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861783] Review Request: thrift - Multi-language RPC and serialization framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861783 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Why so many binding libraries are disabled? Building code generators . : cpp c_glib java as3 csharp py rb perl php erl cocoa st ocaml hs xsd html js javame go Building C++ Library . : yes Building C (GLib) Library : no Building Java Library : yes Building C# Library .. : no Building Python Library .. : no Building Ruby Library : no Building Haskell Library . : no Building Perl Library : no Building PHP Library . : no Building Erlang Library .. : no Building Go Library .. : no -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820659] Review Request: python-ufc - Unified Form-assembly Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820659
José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jama...@fc.up.pt
--- Comment #1 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt ---
Hi Jonathan,
I will review this package but meanwhile there a showstopper. :-)
Such as it the package does not compile in Fedora because of the conditional on
cmake:
%if (0%{?rhel} = 6)
BuildRequires: cmake28
%else
BuildRequires: cmake
%endif
On Fedora this ends requiring cmake28 because rpm evaluates (0 = 6) - (true).
For the moment this is all, I will review this package later today fixing this
issue.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838901] Review Request: autotest-framework - Framework for fully automated testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901 --- Comment #25 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 847513] Review Request: librasterlite - Support Raster Data Sources within a SpatiaLite DB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847513 --- 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 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- I strongly disagree with the review. The package is just a renamed dsgui which has not been accepted into Fedora because of bundling (bug #648973). Are you sure no libraries or fonts are bundled? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=648973 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861922] New: Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 Bug ID: 861922 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: bibutils - Bibliography conversion Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: peter...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Conversion between various bibliography formats Fedora Account System Username: petersen Needed for ghc-hs-bibutils - ghc-citeproc - pandoc to enable pandoc to handle bibliographies. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4546275 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861923] New: Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861923 Bug ID: 861923 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: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: peter...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-hs-bibutils/ghc-hs-bibutils.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-hs-bibutils/ghc-hs-bibutils-4.15-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Bibliography conversion library Fedora Account System Username: petersen Needed for pandoc to handle bibiographies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861923] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861923 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Blocks||861782 Depends On||861922 Alias||ghc-hs-bibutils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861922] Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||861923 (ghc-hs-bibutils) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861922] Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||bibutils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 747031] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell bindings to bibutils, the bibliography conversion utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747031 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|861782 | Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-10-01 07:28:49 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 861923 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861923] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861923 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@d5k.net --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 747031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 --- Comment #11 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #10) Are you sure no libraries or fonts are bundled? Which libraries? I can see DejaVuSans.ttf bundled, thanks for the catch, will de-bundle ASAP - we started tighter collaboration with NIC regarding datovka, so it shouldn't be problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 --- Comment #12 from Jan Synacek jsyna...@redhat.com --- I can't see any libraries bundled, but I must have missed the fonts.. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853124] Review Request: stompclt - Versatile STOMP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853124 Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew.elw...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800284] Review Request: AtomicParsley - Command-Line Program to Read and Set iTunes-style Metadata Tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800284
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Spec file changes:
--- AtomicParsley.spec.old 2012-05-09 07:36:25.372000202 +
+++ AtomicParsley.spec 2012-09-26 18:50:26.0 +
@@ -1,31 +1,37 @@
-Summary: Command-Line Program to Read and Set iTunes-style Metadata Tags
+Summary: Command-line program to read and set MPEG-4 tags and metadata
compatible with iPod/iTunes
URL: http://atomicparsley.sourceforge.net
Name: AtomicParsley
Version: 0.9.0
-Release: 9%{?dist}
-License: GPLv2
+Release: 10%{?dist}
+License: GPLv2+
Group: Applications/Multimedia
-#Source0:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/atomicparsley/%{name}-source-%{version}.zip
Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/atomicparsley/atomicparsley/%{name}%20v%{version}/%{name}-source-%{version}.zip
-#Source1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
Patch0:%{name}-fix_bad_math.patch
#BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot
%description
-Command line program that can read and set iTunes-style meta data
-tags in MPEG-4 files (M4V, M4A, MP4, MOV) 3gp assets in 3GPP/3GPP2 files.
+AtomicParsley is a command line program for reading, parsing and setting
+tags and metadata into MPEG-4 files supporting these styles of metadata:
+
+. iTunes-style metadata into .mp4, .m4a, .m4p, .m4v, .m4b files
+. 3gp-style assets (3GPP TS 26.444 version 6.4.0 Release 6 specification
+ conforming) in 3GPP, 3GPP2, MobileMP4 derivatives
+. ISO copyright notices at movie track level for MPEG-4 derivative files
+. uuid private user extension text file embedding for MPEG-4 derivative
files
+
%prep
+# This 'rm' must be *before* %setup because the __MACOSX directory is outside
the
+# main source directory, so a %clean will not actually clean it.
rm -rf __MACOSX
%setup -q -n %{name}-source-%{version}
-#cp %{S:1} COPYING
%patch0
-%__sed -i 's/-O2/$OPTFLAGS/g;' build
-
-%__sed -i '1aset -e' build
+sed -i 's/-O2/$OPTFLAGS/g;' build
+sed -i 's/g++/$CXX/g;' build
+sed -i '1aset -e' build
%build
CXX=%__cxx \
@@ -33,23 +39,22 @@
./build
%install
-%__install -D -s -m0755 AtomicParsley %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/AtomicParsley
+install -D -s -m0755 AtomicParsley %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/AtomicParsley
-#%clean
-#rm -rf %{buildroot}
-
%files
-#%defattr(-,root,root)
%doc COPYING AP\ buglist.txt Using\ AtomicParsley.rtf
%{_bindir}/AtomicParsley
%changelog
-* Fri Mar 02 2012 Avi Alkalay a...@unix.sh 0.9.0-9.fc16
+* Tue Sep 25 2012 Avi Alkalay a...@unix.sh 0.9.0-10
+- Editing with comments from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800284#c3
+
+* Fri Mar 02 2012 Avi Alkalay a...@unix.sh 0.9.0-9
- Editing with comments from
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2190#c1
-* Wed Feb 22 2012 Avi Alkalay a...@unix.sh 0.9.0-7.fc16
+* Wed Feb 22 2012 Avi Alkalay a...@unix.sh 0.9.0-7
- RPM and patches adapted and built for Fedora 16 based on Madriva SRPM
* Thu Jul 22 2010 pas...@links2linux.de
TODO: The summary emphasis a service, but the tool manipulates MPEG-4 atoms
regardless
of the origin of a file. Please change the summary to be more descriptive
(e.g.
`Manipulate MPEG-4 metadata').
-Summary: Command-Line Program to Read and Set iTunes-style Metadata Tags
+Summary: Command-line program to read and set MPEG-4 tags and metadata
compatible with iPod/iTunes
Ok.
TODO: The same applies to the description. Copying first paragraph with the
list of
metadata profiles from project web page sounds better for me.
%description
-Command line program that can read and set iTunes-style meta data
-tags in MPEG-4 files (M4V, M4A, MP4, MOV) 3gp assets in 3GPP/3GPP2 files.
+AtomicParsley is a command line program for reading, parsing and setting
+tags and metadata into MPEG-4 files supporting these styles of metadata:
+
+. iTunes-style metadata into .mp4, .m4a, .m4p, .m4v, .m4b files
+. 3gp-style assets (3GPP TS 26.444 version 6.4.0 Release 6 specification
+ conforming) in 3GPP, 3GPP2, MobileMP4 derivatives
+. ISO copyright notices at movie track level for MPEG-4 derivative files
+. uuid private user extension text file embedding for MPEG-4 derivative
files
+
Ok.
FIX: All files are distributed under GPLv2 or later version. Change the
License tag to
GPLv2+.
-License: GPLv2
+Release: 10%{?dist}
+License: GPLv2+
Ok.
TODO: Remove the useless commented code from SPEC file (Source1, etc.).
It's better now.
TODO: Remove #BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot.
TODO: Append a slash to the URL to provide normalized URL.
Not addressed.
TODO: The `rm -rf __MACOSX' command in %prep section should go after %setup.
%prep
+# This 'rm' must be *before* %setup because the __MACOSX directory is outside
the
+# main source directory, so a %clean will not actually clean it.
I still can't understand how removing directory before unpacking sources can
remove the directory
[Bug 861783] Review Request: thrift - Multi-language RPC and serialization framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861783 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Hi Peter, for now I am not interested to enable them. (for go library is'nt available go from http://golang.org/,and gomake from http://code.google.com/p/gomake/) python and perl bindings are builded in a separate tasks c glib bindings require glib2 thanks regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853124] Review Request: stompclt - Versatile STOMP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853124 Andrew Elwell andrew.elw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andrew.elw...@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 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- I'll do the official review, and will take care of sponsoring Erwin, when it's done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Great! Package is finally 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 826520] Review Request: hiera - A simple hierarchical database supporting plugin data sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520 --- Comment #16 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Hi Vit, I do not want to rename this package from hiera, its an application where you can import that application into some other application. If this was renamed then so should puppet for instance and mcollective since you can use the backend of puppet as a library in your own application. Are these packages also wrong?.. Maybe I am misunderstanding what a #Non-Gem-Package is? Re the ABI not sure where I got ruby(abi) = 1.9.3 from, bizarre. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847817] Review Request: libestr - A library to handle strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847817 Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tm...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tm...@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 847817] Review Request: libestr - A library to handle strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847817 Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com --- rpmlint -v libestr-0.1.3-3.fc16.src.rpm libestr-0.1.3-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libestr- devel-0.1.3-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libestr-debuginfo-0.1.3-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libestr.src: I: checking libestr.src: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libestr.src: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/files/download/libestr-0.1.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) libestr.x86_64: I: checking libestr.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libestr-devel.x86_64: I: checking libestr-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libestr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libestr-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking libestr-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The warning above is OK. Tarball matches the upstream sources. The package complies with Fedora packaging and licensing guidelines. Note - the COPYING file states at the beginning that the libestr is packaged under the GNU GPL v2.1 or above but the license is GNU LGPL v2.1 or above as seen in the full text of the license and in the individual source files. Please notify upstream so they can fix the COPYING file appropriately. The package is ACCEPTED. I will sponsor you into packagers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826520] Review Request: hiera - A simple hierarchical database supporting plugin data sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520
--- Comment #17 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Hi Vit,
I do not want to rename this package from hiera, its an application
where you can import that application into some other application.
If this was renamed then so should puppet for instance and mcollective
since you can use the backend of puppet as a library in your own application.
Are these packages also wrong?. Maybe I am misunderstanding what a
#Non-Gem-Package is?
Well, I agree that the application vs library might be a bit fuzzy. But if you
take a look on Puppet, non of its files are installed into Ruby's
%{ruby_vendorlibdir}, while all of hiera's files are installed there. In this
case, it seems that hiera is more library then application and therefore it
should have ruby- prefix.
May be it could be split into two packages? Something like hiera, which
contains the executable and may be something more and the ruby-hiera, which
would contain the library part? Not sure if that is not overkill 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 858380] Review Request: Gluegen2 - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858380 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- hi Clément, thanks 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 858025] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025 Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-helpdesk Short Description: A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise. Owners: lbazan 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 859149] Review Request: perl-Encode - Character encodings in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859149 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Indeed. Bug in my script for publishing review. Try this: Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Encode/perl-Encode.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Encode/perl-Encode-2.47-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The Encode module provides the interface between Perl strings and the rest of the system. Perl strings are sequences of characters. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859671] Review Request: opencpn - A free and open source software for marine navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859671 Jean-Eudes ONFRAY j...@onfray.fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@onfray.fr --- Comment #9 from Jean-Eudes ONFRAY j...@onfray.fr --- A previous review request for 2.1 can be found here: Bug 612224 I updated it for 2.5.0 in February but nothing since. If you read my comments there, I said: -- gdal library has lots of changes from upstream. Changes heavily related to internal use. Would probably not fit to upstream for inclusion. nmea0183 does not exist as a lib. There are two different versions: one for core OpenCPN, one for the dashboard plugin. Both are different. It's required by lead OpenCPN dev to ensure plugins doesn't rely on any special version from core. -- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025 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 858025] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-helpdesk-0.1.7b-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-helpdesk-0.1.7b-3.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 847811] Review Request: libee - An event expression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847811 Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tm...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tm...@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 859099] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict - Fast and correct UTF-8 I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859099 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict Short Description: Fast and correct UTF-8 I/O Owners: ppisar jplesnik mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826520] Review Request: hiera - A simple hierarchical database supporting plugin data sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520
--- Comment #18 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Well, I agree that the application vs library might be a bit fuzzy. But if
you take a look on Puppet, non of its files are installed into Ruby's
%{ruby_vendorlibdir}, while all of hiera's files are installed there. In
this case, it seems that hiera is more library then application and
therefore it should have ruby- prefix.
I don't make the same observation? I see puppet and hiera as from a
packaging point of view identical.
On Fedora 17
Puppet installs as
/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/puppet.rb
/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/puppet/*
and hiera installs as
/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/hiera.rb
/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/hiera
on fedora 17, epel = 6 it installs in the old location via the following:
%if 0%{?el5}%{?el6}%{?fc16}
%{!?ruby_vendorlibdir: %global ruby_vendorlibdir /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8}
%endif
which is exactly what puppet does also: EPEL6 puppet-2.6.17-2.el6.noarch.rpm
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/puppet.rb
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/puppet/*
May be it could be split into two packages? Something like hiera, which
contains the executable and may be something more and the ruby-hiera, which
would contain the library part? Not sure if that is not overkill though :)
Indeed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859099] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict - Fast and correct UTF-8 I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859099 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847811] Review Request: libee - An event expression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847811 Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com --- I think the license tag is wrong - it should be probably either LGPLv2+ and MIT or LGPLv2+ alone. The statement at the beginning of COPYING file is probably an upstream mistake as the full text of the license is LGPL2.1 and not GPL. Please correct the licence tag and notify upstream about the mistake. I will approve the package anyway as the licence tag mistake can be fixed before import. rpmlint -v libee-0.4.1-3.fc16.src.rpm libee-0.4.1-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libee-devel-0.4.1-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libee-utils-0.4.1-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libee.src: I: checking libee.src: I: checking-url http://www.libee.org (timeout 10 seconds) libee.src: I: checking-url http://www.libee.org/files/download/libee-0.4.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) libee.x86_64: I: checking libee.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.libee.org (timeout 10 seconds) libee-devel.x86_64: I: checking libee-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsyslog - serology libee-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.libee.org (timeout 10 seconds) libee-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libee-utils.x86_64: I: checking libee-utils.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.libee.org (timeout 10 seconds) libee-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation libee-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libee-convert 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. The spelling error is not a real error. Missing documentation and manual page is upstream issue. Tarball matches the upstream sources. The package complies with Fedora packaging and licensing guidelines. The package is ACCEPTED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847817] Review Request: libestr - A library to handle strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847817 Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848388] Review Request: liblognorm - Tool to normalize log data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848388 Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tm...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com --- The %description for the main package should be at least slightly more descriptive. And the %description of the utils subpackage contains error 'its' is mistaken for 'it is'. The same mistake as in libee and libestr is repeated here - the first sentence in COPYING contradicts with the contents of COPYING and the source 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 852914] Review Request: python-rackspace-monitoring - Client library for Rackspace Cloud Monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914
Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(bazanluis20@gmail
||.com)
--- Comment #9 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (rackspace-monitoring-0.3.1.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 855283] Review Request: pass - A unix password manager using standard tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855283 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pass-1.4.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pass-1.4.1-1.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 820659] Review Request: python-ufc - Unified Form-assembly Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820659 --- Comment #2 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt --- Created attachment 619821 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=619821action=edit Patch to spec file with changes to comply with guidelines Proposed changes to 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 820659] Review Request: python-ufc - Unified Form-assembly Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820659
--- Comment #3 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt ---
Created attachment 619823
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=619823action=edit
Patch cmake file to install the pkg-config file in %{_libdir}
With this patch the pkg-config file is installed in %{_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 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 --- Comment #13 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 648973 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861783] Review Request: thrift - Multi-language RPC and serialization framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861783 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- added C (GLib) Library support -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854691] Review Request: datovka - A free graphical interface for Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854691 --- Comment #14 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- It's probably issue in the prerequisite review of python-dslib. I will follow there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854690] Review Request: python-dslib - A Python library for accessing Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854690 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Original review bug #648898 python-dslib has been stuck because of bundling suds and pyasn1. You can find more details there. Please check the libraries have been unbundled properly. I also recall the (or dsgui) sources bundled X.509 certificate of an authority used by ISDS server. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854690] Review Request: python-dslib - A Python library for accessing Czech Databox (Datové schránky)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854690 --- Comment #10 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #9) Original review bug #648898 python-dslib has been stuck because of bundling suds and pyasn1. You can find more details there. Please check the libraries have been unbundled properly. Upstream debundled to python-sudsds and python-pyasn1, see python-sudsds review. The python-sudsds solution is temporal, we are working on the merge with our suds, but it will take some time (again see python-sudsds review). Feel free to help us with this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820659] Review Request: python-ufc - Unified Form-assembly Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820659
José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
Issues:
===
[!]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/include/ufc.h
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
Not a problem clearly this is a development package, so it is safe to
ignore the requirement.
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[!]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/include/ufc.h
[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.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
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.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jamatos/tmp/fedora/review-python-
ufc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: 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]: CheckResultdir
[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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found:
[Bug 826520] Review Request: hiera - A simple hierarchical database supporting plugin data sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520
--- Comment #19 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
Well, I agree that the application vs library might be a bit fuzzy. But if
you take a look on Puppet, non of its files are installed into Ruby's
%{ruby_vendorlibdir}, while all of hiera's files are installed there. In
this case, it seems that hiera is more library then application and
therefore it should have ruby- prefix.
I don't make the same observation? I see puppet and hiera as from a
packaging point of view identical.
Actually, I was wrong. I was looking into -sever subpackage instead :/ But
anyway, if I did the review for puppet, I would suggest them to split the
package into puppet and ruby-puppet as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859099] Review Request: perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict - Fast and correct UTF-8 I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859099 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-10-01 11:19:14 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the 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 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pencil Short Description: A sketching and GUI prototyping tool Owners: tuanta Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: 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 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 --- Comment #17 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 768894] Review Request: haven - Next Generation Backup System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768894 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(dben...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- Indeed, fails to build for me in rawhide as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841483] Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 Aleksandra Bookwar al...@bookwar.info changed: What|Removed |Added CC||al...@bookwar.info Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|al...@bookwar.info --- Comment #15 from Aleksandra Bookwar al...@bookwar.info --- Since Fl@sh is already sponsored, I am taking this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858025] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-helpdesk-0.1.7b-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-helpdesk-0.1.7b-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 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 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pencil-2.0.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pencil-2.0.1-1.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 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pencil-2.0.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pencil-2.0.1-1.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 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pencil-2.0.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pencil-2.0.1-1.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 832635] Review Request: pencil - A sketching and GUI prototyping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832635 Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-01 13:25:05 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847811] Review Request: libee - An event expression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847811 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- I think the license tag is wrong In comment 4 I explicitly acknowledge that License: LGPLv2+ was correct. No idea why it has been changed in the newer spec file. The %changelog should have mentioned such changes to _the packaging_. That's one of the things packagers ought to practise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847513] Review Request: librasterlite - Support Raster Data Sources within a SpatiaLite DB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847513 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847513] Review Request: librasterlite - Support Raster Data Sources within a SpatiaLite DB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847513 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- librasterlite-1.1c-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/librasterlite-1.1c-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848388] Review Request: liblognorm - Tool to normalize log data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848388 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- And the %description of the utils subpackage contains error 'its' is mistaken for 'it is'. See comment 4. it is or it's would not form a valid sentence, because an article such as a or the would be missing: | The lognormalizer is the core of liblognorm, it's utility for | normalizing log files. So, either add the missing article or rephrase. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861893] Review Request: libmongo-client - Alternative C driver for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861893
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Hi Milan
Initial Comments:
%{name} = %{version}-%{release} has to be %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} to match the correct architecture.
Please rpmlint out of the SRPMS, spec and RPMS
and additionally Koji Builds of the versions where you want to build the
package.
Regards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786249] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-puppet-lint-0.2.1-3.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 786249] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-lint - Tool to verify the style of puppet manifests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786249 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 845934] Review Request: wt - C++ library for developing web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.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 858025] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 858025] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858025 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-helpdesk-0.1.7b-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 861694] Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
-
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.
[X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv3+ according to the source file headers
[+] 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 *
ba630fdcdefa238b2c87f050f6fcbd5a4828527497d52d410761a26c8ca25311
thinkfan-0.8.1.tar.gz
ba630fdcdefa238b2c87f050f6fcbd5a4828527497d52d410761a26c8ca25311
thinkfan-0.8.1.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
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #14 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi Matthias, Thank you very much! best regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pin...@pingoured.fr --- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- Are you still interested in getting this package into the repo (and thus becoming packager) ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847513] Review Request: librasterlite - Support Raster Data Sources within a SpatiaLite DB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847513 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- librasterlite-1.1c-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847513] Review Request: librasterlite - Support Raster Data Sources within a SpatiaLite DB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847513 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 --- Comment #3 from Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/jogl2.spec SRPM URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/jogl2-2.0-0.2.rc10.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: davidcl Hi, I updated to provide all javadocs and doc. Even if gluegen2 provide a maven target, jogl2 does not (may be in a future rc). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800284] Review Request: AtomicParsley - Command-Line Program to Read and Set iTunes-style Metadata Tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800284 --- Comment #6 from Avi Alkalay avibra...@gmail.com --- Here are the updates based on last comments: http://avi.alkalay.net/software/atomicparsley/AtomicParsley.spec http://avi.alkalay.net/software/atomicparsley/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-11.fc17.src.rpm http://avi.alkalay.net/software/atomicparsley/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-11.fc17.x86_64.rpm rpmlint now is as clean as possible. I moved the 'rm __MACOSX' to %build and changed the comment to be more clear: %build # The source zip file includes a top level directory called __MACOSX which doesn't # get removed by %%clean, so in a multiple RPM build scenario this directory will # not get removed, making a subsequent RPM build fail in the unzipping process. # We will remove this useless directory right now to avoid problems in subsequent # RPM builds of the same package. rm -rf ../__MACOSX Thank you for reviewing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
hi Clément,
can use this pom instead ?
in jogl-v2.0-rc10/make/pom.xml
but in this one you should fix - change
versionthis pom is a stub, just to resolve dependencies/version
with
version2.0-rc10/version
and
dependencies
dependency
artifactIdgluegen-rt-natives/artifactId
groupIdorg.jogamp.gluegen/groupId
version[1.0-beta07-SNAPSHOT,)/version !--TODO:exclude snapshot
versions from this range--
classifier${envClassifier}-${os.arch}/classifier !--Can't use
${os.name} - it's uppercase--
/dependency
dependency
artifactIdgluegen-cpptasks/artifactId
groupIdorg.jogamp.gluegen/groupId
version[1.0-beta07-SNAPSHOT,)/version !--TODO:exclude snapshot
versions from this range--
/dependency
/dependencies
with
dependencies
dependency
artifactIdgluegen-rt/artifactId
groupIdorg.jogamp.gluegen/groupId
version2.0-rc10/version
/dependency
dependency
artifactIdcpptasks/artifactId
groupIdant-contrib/groupId
version1.0b5/version
scopesystem/scope
systemPath${_javadir}/cpptasks.jar/systemPath
/dependency
/dependencies
(cpptasks package dont provides maven pom and depmap, this is a workaround and
temporarily fix the problem)
and when create the depmap
add also this please
%add_maven_depmap JPP-%{name}.pom %{name}.jar -a org.jogamp.jogl:jogl-all
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 859731] Review Request: php-channel-sabredav - adds the SabreDAV channel to php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859731 --- Comment #4 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/owncloud-deps/php-channel-sabredav/php-channel-sabredav.spec SRPM URL: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/owncloud-deps/php-channel-sabredav/php-channel-sabredav-1.3-3.fc18.src.rpm older builds are in: http://jmarrero.fedorapeople.org/packages/owncloud-deps/php-channel-sabredav/old/* Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4549417 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857801] Review Request: TigerVNC EL5 - VNC remote display server/client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857801 bph...@jhu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from bph...@jhu.edu --- Package Change Request == Package Name: tigervnc New Branches: el5 Owners: bphinz Please create an el5 branch for the existing tigervnc package. 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 819687] Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 --- Comment #20 from Tomas Dabašinskas tdaba...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~tdabasin/python-rtkit/python-rtkit-0.2.5-1.el6.src.rpm Jason, I've updated the pacakge to 0.2.5, I'd really appreciate if you could please review this when you get a chance. Many 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 861694] Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694 --- Comment #3 from Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com --- Updated to fix the above mentioned issues. Spec: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/thinkfan.spec SRPM: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/thinkfan-0.8.1-2.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 861922] Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Fixed missing BR for tcsh: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4549516 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861922] Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Hi Jens, I'll review this one. 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 861922] Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com ---
Hello,
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue
[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[+] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[+] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[+] License
[?] License field in spec matches
^^
The copying file is GPLv2, and I see no mention of the GPL+ license anywhere in
the source.
[+] License file included in package
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum:
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh bibutils.spec
Getting http://downloads.sourceforge.net/bibutils/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz to
/tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
0 00 00 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
100 436k 100 436k0 0 424k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 424k
b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3 /tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz
b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3
/home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz
removed `/tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz'
removed directory: `/tmp/review'
[+] BuildRequires correct
[+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
[+] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
[+] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
[+] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
[+] .so files in -devel subpackage.
[+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
^^
An arch specific provides using the %{?_isa} would be better?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires
[+] .la files are removed.
[+] 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/bibutils.spec
./bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/bibutils-*
../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure
--install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
--dynamic
../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts - inter
converts, inter-converts, interconnects
bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic
bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts - inter
converts, inter-converts, interconnects
bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic
bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
- Not a standard configure file. Looks okay.
bibutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts - inter
converts, inter-converts, interconnects
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordbib2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modsclean
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary biblatex2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2end
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ads
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ris2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2isi
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary endx2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bib2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary med2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ris
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary end2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2wordbib
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copac2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isi2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ebi2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2bib
- Some man pages would be nice, if upstream can provide them
bibutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbibutils.so.4.15
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
- Upstream issue. Please notify upstream
bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 29 warnings.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$
- Look okay. Please correct the spelling errors if applicable.
[+] final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm [-]qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)
== bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.src.rpm ==
Provides:
Requires:
tcsh
== bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
bibutils =
[Bug 859731] Review Request: php-channel-sabredav - adds the SabreDAV channel to php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859731
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
6c6
Release:2%{?dist}
---
Release:3%{?dist}
10c10
License:BSD
---
License:Public Domain
35d34
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
58a58,60
* Mon Oct 01 2012 Joseph Marrero jmarr...@fedoraproject.org - 1.3-3
- remove rm -rf %%BUILDROOT from install
- change licence to public domain
rpmlint output :
php-channel-sabredav.spec:19: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
php-channel(%{channelname})
php-channel-sabredav.spec:41: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4,
tab: line 41)
No Blocker:
== 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
