[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 #15 from Fedora Update System --- gluegen2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gluegen2-2.0-0.4.rc10.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 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 #14 from Fedora Update System --- gluegen2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gluegen2-2.0-0.4.rc10.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 858380] Review Request: Gluegen2 - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858380 Fedora Update System 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 862368] Review Request: xkbset - Tool to configure XKB extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862368 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge --- I'll take this for review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861694] Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- thinkfan-0.8.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thinkfan-0.8.1-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861694] Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- thinkfan-0.8.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thinkfan-0.8.1-2.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 861694] Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694 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 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 --- Comment #15 from Dan Mashal --- Yes, good catch, not needed for this package. Fixing and removing the requires field. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 --- Comment #14 from leigh scott --- (In reply to comment #12) > Updated: > > Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-control-center.spec > SRPM URL: > http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-control-center-1.4.0-3. > fc17.src.rpm > Description: MATE Desktop control center This still fails the review process. 1. use of hard path in configure command -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694
--- Comment #13 from leigh scott ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Thanks Leigh,
>
> Yes, learned the hard way about looking at build logs.
>
> The reason why libexec is there is to avoid the conflict with gnome... what
> would you suggest? It does work, yes I know rpmbuild specifies a lot of this
> stuff but as per upstream using that flag avoids conflicts with Gnome 3.
> Maybe I should use export for the libexec path dir instead?
>
> I have fixed the spelling error. Thank you for pointing this out.
Well if you insist on adding the libexec bit you MUST use a macro
eg:
--libexecdir=%{_libexecdir}
Or your package will fail the 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 860518] Review Request: mate-panel - MATE Desktop panel applets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860518 --- Comment #5 from Dan Mashal --- Updated: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-panel.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-panel-1.4.0-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop panel applets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 --- Comment #12 from Dan Mashal --- Updated: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-control-center.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-control-center-1.4.0-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop control center -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862502] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862502 Joseph Marrero changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||859731 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Joseph Marrero changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||862502 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862501] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_DAV - Sabre_DAV is a WebDAV framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862501 Joseph Marrero changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||862502 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862502] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862502 Joseph Marrero changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||862501 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862502] New: Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862502 Bug ID: 862502 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jmarr...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre.spec SRPM URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre-1.0.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Description:SabreDAV allows you to easily add WebDAV support to a PHP application. The base package provides some functionality used by all packages. Currently this is only an autoloader. Fedora Account System Username: jmarrero -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 --- Comment #11 from Dan Mashal --- Thanks Leigh, Yes, learned the hard way about looking at build logs. The reason why libexec is there is to avoid the conflict with gnome... what would you suggest? It does work, yes I know rpmbuild specifies a lot of this stuff but as per upstream using that flag avoids conflicts with Gnome 3. Maybe I should use export for the libexec path dir instead? I have fixed the spelling error. Thank you for pointing this out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862501] New: Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_DAV - Sabre_DAV is a WebDAV framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862501 Bug ID: 862501 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_DAV - Sabre_DAV is a WebDAV framework for PHP Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jmarr...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre_DAV.spec SRPM URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre_DAV-1.6.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: SabreDAV allows you to easily add WebDAV support to a PHP application. SabreDAV is meant to cover the entire standard, and attempts to allow integration using an easy to understand API. Fedora Account System Username: jmarrero -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-03 00:42:25 --- Comment #8 from Mathieu Bridon --- Thanks Jon! Package built in Rawhide, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850641] Review Request: perl-AI-Categorizer - Automatic Text Categorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850641 Bug 850641 depends on bug 849545, which changed state. Bug 849545 Summary: Review Request: perl-Algorithm-NaiveBayes - Bayesian prediction of categories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849545 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #16 from Fedora Update System --- vsqlite++-0.3.9-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860146] Review Request: vsqlite++ - A C++ Wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860146 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 859819] Review Request: almas-mongolian-title-fonts - Mongolian Title font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859819 Parag changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |alms-mongolian-title-fonts |almas-mongolian-title-fonts |- Mongolian Title font |- Mongolian Title font --- Comment #5 from Parag --- Update this package to have foundry "almas" Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/almas-mongolian-title-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/almas-mongolian-title-fonts-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860515] Review Request: mate-themes - MATE Desktop themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860515 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Dan Mashal --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mate-themes Short Description: MATE Desktop themes Owners: rdieter vicodan Branches: f16 f17 f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860521] Review Request: mate-session-manager - MATE Desktop session manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860521 --- Comment #4 from Dan Mashal --- Per our conversation, fixed some of the scriptlets, and the licensing. There is a bug in mate-conf-1.4.0-19 works fine with mate-conf-1.4.0-14, we know what to fix with that one. This one should be good to go. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-session-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-session-manager-1.4.0-4.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 861922] Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen --- > However grepping more carefully now I see there is a manpage src file > in docbook (.dbk) which states the manpage is GPLv2+. > I am not sure if that is sufficient to make the whole package GPLv2+, > perhaps? Correction: the manpage states itself is GPL version 2. "This manual page is distributed under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License." Anyway I am writing to upstream now hoping to get some clarification on the GPL version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860515] Review Request: mate-themes - MATE Desktop themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860515 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter --- still missing a handful of icon scriptlets, but I'll leave to you to fix prior to issuing any official builds. 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 861694] Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830113] Review Request: rootfs-resize - Root partition re-sizing service for SD cards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830113 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- rootfs-resize-0.9-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rootfs-resize-0.9-1.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 830113] Review Request: rootfs-resize - Root partition re-sizing service for SD cards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830113 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- rootfs-resize-0.9-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rootfs-resize-0.9-1.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 861694] Review Request: thinkfan - A simple fan control program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861694 Matt Spaulding changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Matt Spaulding --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: thinkfan Short Description: A simple fan control program Owners: madsa 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 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694 --- Comment #10 from leigh scott --- you also have a spelling mistake in %configure --disable-static --disable-schemas-instalp --disable-scrollkeeper --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --disable-schemas-instalp should be --disable-schemas-install Do you ever check the buildlogs? http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4917/4544917/build.log + export LDFLAGS + ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib64 --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --disable-static --disable-schemas-instalp --disable-scrollkeeper --libexecdir=/usr/libexec configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-schemas-instalp checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c note --libexecdir=/usr/libexe is in there twice! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853694] Review Request: mate-control-center - MATE Desktop control center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853694
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co
||m
--- Comment #9 from leigh scott ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I've fixed all of the build issues, per our chat, and removed about me
> (pretty useless).
>
> Please check it:
>
> Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-control-center.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-control-center-1.4.0-4.
> fc17.src.rpm
> Description: MATE Desktop control center
>
> Successful koji build:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4544916
Please remove --libexecdir=/usr/libexec from
%configure --disable-static --disable-schemas-install --enable-aboutme
--disable-scrollkeeper --libexecdir=/usr/libexec
The %configure macro already defines it plus you used a hard path instead of a
macro ( correct way --libexecdir=%{_libexecdir} ).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846488] Review Request: babeltrace - Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846488 --- Comment #6 from Yannick Brosseau --- Updated package available at: SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/babeltrace.spec SRPM: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/babeltrace-1.0.0-0.1.rc5.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts --- Sorry for not responding sooner; I must have skipped right over your previous two messages. If there's any chance that gperf is needed, you should definitely add a build dependency on it. Can you post a both an updated spec and srpm so that I can do one last build and finally get this 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 846488] Review Request: babeltrace - Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846488 --- Comment #5 from Yannick Brosseau --- (In reply to comment #3) > > I'm not sure about the license. I wonder why include/babeltrace/list.h > claims LGPLv2. That one test is GPLv2, which I find a little strange. Should > that really make it GPL instead of LGPL? I don't understand this part, The file clearly state that it is LGPL (and it comes from GLIBC which is LGPL) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846488] Review Request: babeltrace - Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846488 --- Comment #4 from Yannick Brosseau --- (In reply to comment #3) > Shared lib calls exit. This should be reported upstream. > See bug: http://bugs.lttng.org/issues/322 > > Can you run the tests? Right now, the make check does nothing. Working with upstream to fix that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841483] Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 --- Comment #16 from Fl@sh --- New successfull build: Spec: https://raw.github.com/F1ash/plasmaMailChecker/10b7be10db07900861717727cd3a3459bef0caed/kde-plasma-mail-checker.spec SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2718/4552718/kde-plasma-mail-checker-1.7.41-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860249] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249 --- Comment #21 from Tobias Florek --- new release: SPEC http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~florek/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts.spec SRPM http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~florek/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts-1.010-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839649] Review Request: rubygem-rails_best_practices - a code metric tool for rails codes, written in Ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839649 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmo...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi --- Couple post review-nits * the spec file should be named rubygem-rails_best_practices * can you run the spec suite in a check section in the specfile? * please move the spec suite into the docs subpackage * please rm the files you exclude earlier in the spec and remove those excludes from the files section * slim is listed as a dev dependency on rubygems.org but is not referenced in this spec, is it needed? 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 827101] Review Request: trayer-srg - a small gtk2 systray
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827101 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann --- Just a reminder ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839652] Review Request: rubygem-colored - Add some color to your life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839652
Mo Morsi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mmo...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi ---
Maros some comments:
* Please change the summary / description to be in accordance to packaging
guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description
Since there is almost no documentation / comments we can draw upon, we can
probably just use something similar to the following for both:
"Rubygem extending the ruby string class to include methods that generates
colored terminal output"
* Why do you exclude %{gem_cache}?
* Please move %{gem_instdir}/test/colored_test.rb into the doc subpackage
* Since the yardoc dir is only created if rubygem-yard is present you should
remove that reference from the specfile all together and rebuild the srpm w/out
yard present on your system
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 839650] Review Request: rubygem-awesome_print - Pretty print Ruby objects with proper indentation and colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650
Mo Morsi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mmo...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi ---
Maros, there are still some updates needed to this package.
As Michal mentioned please move the %{gem_instdir}/spec/ dir into the 'doc'
files list.
You should not be excluding the Gemfile (the Gemfile.lock is ok), and consider
rm'ing the files in one of the previous sections instead of marking them as
%exclude (I believe both are acceptable though the former is more common /
cleaner).
Lastly unless there is a reason not too (if so list it here) please add a
%check section where you invoke the spec suite (manually so as not to pull in
rake).
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 823682] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-adwaita - The Adwaita gnome-shell theme created by half_left
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823682 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann --- Just a reminder ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #15 from Fedora Update System --- vsqlite++-0.3.9-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vsqlite++-0.3.9-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860146] Review Request: vsqlite++ - A C++ Wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860146 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 860146] Review Request: vsqlite++ - A C++ Wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860146 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- vsqlite++-0.3.9-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vsqlite++-0.3.9-3.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 748450] Review Request: celt0110 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748450 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann --- Just a reminder ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858060] Review Request: qpid-snmpd - SNMP agent for qpid broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858060 --- Comment #10 from Ernie --- SPEC URL: http://eallen.fedorapeople.org/qpid-snmpd.spec SRPM URL: http://eallen.fedorapeople.org/qpid-snmpd-1.0.0-5.fc17.src.rpm > 1) ... use the newer macroized scriptlets for Fedora 18+... I added the conditionals to the spec file for Fedora 18+ for the systemd scriptlets. > 2) ... do not define a BuildRoot, delete the BuildRoot... unless you're > building for EPEL. Thanks. For future Fedora only packages, I'll be sure to avoid those steps. > 3) ... If they (the config files) and being used, please mark them as > %config(noreplace) in %files I marked the config files noreplace in the %files section of the spec. However, doing so has added some rpmlint warnings: >qpid-snmpd.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile >/usr/share/snmp/qpid_snmp.conf >qpid-snmpd.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile >/usr/share/snmp/qpid010.conf But the files can't be moved. The net-snmp libraries used to build the application require that the config files be in the /usr/share/snmp directory. Thanks Tom! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #4 from Guillermo Gómez --- First comment for readers, i had a long talk with Eduardo in order to review the naming convention for this pkg since it fits the case of a post-release. Eduardo has to workaround with upstream for the naming convention for upcoming releases, then we will move on commenting in the spec about such agreement. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Guillermo Gómez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 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 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #7 from Gregor Tätzner --- Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/php-cloudfiles.spec SRPM URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.fc17.src.rpm understood, 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 750902] Review Request: sleep - Multi-paradigm scripting language for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750902 --- Comment #11 from Orion Poplawski --- See comment #3 for the latest version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856002] Review Request: plug - Linux software for Fender Mustang amplifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856002 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann --- New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4552310 $ rpmlint -i -v * plug.src: I: checking plug.src: I: checking-url http://piorekf.org/plug/ (timeout 10 seconds) plug.src: I: checking-url https://bitbucket.org/piorekf/plug/get/v1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) plug.i686: I: checking plug.i686: I: checking-url http://piorekf.org/plug/ (timeout 10 seconds) plug.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. plug.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plug Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. plug.x86_64: I: checking plug.x86_64: I: checking-url http://piorekf.org/plug/ (timeout 10 seconds) plug.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. plug.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plug Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. plug-debuginfo.i686: I: checking plug-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://piorekf.org/plug/ (timeout 10 seconds) plug-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking plug-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://piorekf.org/plug/ (timeout 10 seconds) plug.spec: I: checking-url https://bitbucket.org/piorekf/plug/get/v1.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. No recognizable issues. The group "plugdev" will be created at installation. This is OK so far, but the command has to be followed by "exit 0". See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups for more information. No further objections from my side, your package is ready for a full review once you've fixed the mentioned 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 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 #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 858380] Review Request: Gluegen2 - Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858380 Clément DAVID changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Clément DAVID --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gluegen2 Short Description: Java/JNI glue code generator to call out to ANSI C Owners: davidcl Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: davidcl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860697] Review Request: tmw - The Mana World is a 2D MMORPG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860697
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4551751
$ rpmlint -i -v *
tmw.src: I: checking
tmw.src: I: checking-url http://themanaworld.org (timeout 10 seconds)
tmw.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/themanaworld/tmw-branding/tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
tmw.noarch: I: checking
tmw.noarch: I: checking-url http://themanaworld.org (timeout 10 seconds)
tmw.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided manaworld
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.
tmw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tmw
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
tmw.spec: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/themanaworld/tmw-branding/tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK so far, according to your explanation.
-
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.
GPLv2
[+] 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 *
2ea5f3e677928efab1699a086ddec6d14f660af5afbca7f9d86f839a7d41b15b
tmw-branding-20110911.tar.gz
2ea5f3e677928efab1699a086ddec6d14f660af5afbca7f9d86f839a7d41b15b
tmw-branding-20110911.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 conte
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet --- (In reply to comment #5) > that's a nice one. But I think my next question is obvious: How can I create > a connection between the output of phpci and the package management system? > I have no idea in which packages these extensions are residing. You don't have to know in which package are the extensions (as this can change in the future) Just need : Requires: php-curl, php-date, php-fileinfo, php-hash, php-json Requires: php-mbstring, php-pcre, php-spl notes: - all names are lowercase - core and standard can be omitted, always present (and not yet provided by RHEL packages) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858060] Review Request: qpid-snmpd - SNMP agent for qpid broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858060
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
Hi Ernie, a few points:
1) You're using the older systemd scriptlets here. That's fine for Fedora 17 or
older, but just be sure to use the newer macroized scriptlets for Fedora 18+
targets (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd).
You can either conditionalize this in the spec, or you can make the change in
the F18 and "master" branches in git.
2) You also do not need to define a BuildRoot, delete the BuildRoot in
%install, or define a default %clean section, unless you're building for EPEL
(which I happen to know from talking to Darryl that you are), so just be aware
of that for any future Fedora only packages.
3) You have several config files in this package, I assume they are being used
as opposed to being included solely for reference. If they are being used,
please mark them as %config(noreplace) in %files:
%config(noreplace) %{_datadir}/snmp/qpid010.conf
This ensures that these config files are not replaced when this package is
upgraded.
**
Clarify these items for me, and I'll go ahead and finish off this review. Sorry
for the delay! :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #5 from Gregor Tätzner --- that's a nice one. But I think my next question is obvious: How can I create a connection between the output of phpci and the package management system? I have no idea in which packages these extensions are residing. Are there attempts to create an automatic runtime dependency resolver for php libs, similar to C/C++? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862368] New: Review Request: xkbset - Tool to configure XKB extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862368 Bug ID: 862368 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: xkbset - Tool to configure XKB extensions Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: opensou...@till.name Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/xkbset.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/xkbset-0.5-1.Tillf17.src.rpm Description: xkbset is a program rather like xset in that it allows you to set various features of the X window interface. It allows one to configure most of the options connected with the XKB extensions. They are described in Section 10 of XKBlib.ps. This includes customizing the following: MouseKeys: using the numeric pad keys to move the mouse; StickyKeys: where modifiers like control and shift will lock until the next key press (good for one finger typing); SlowKeys: The keys will not work unless they are pressed for a certain amount of time; BounceKeys: If a key is pressed more than once rapidly, only one key press will be registered. Fedora Account System Username: till -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750902] Review Request: sleep - Multi-paradigm scripting language for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750902 --- Comment #10 from Jaromír Cápík --- If not, then please, upload the final version of spec and srpm ... Thanks, Jaromir. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann --- OK from my side. Package is 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 860352] Review Request: farstream02 - Libraries for videoconferencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860352
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Dieter ---
Created attachment 620411
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=620411&action=edit
Licensecheck output
So basically I see three issues here:
1. There are unversioned .so files in /usr/lib64/gstreamer1. Is this how
gstreamer is supposed to work? If so, we can ignore this.
2. There's a rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install, which should be removed
3. There are a few files in farstream-0.2.0/common/coverage that are GPLv2
rather than LGPLv2. Not sure how important they are and whether they should be
changed to GPLv2. There are a few other files that are missing copyrights
and/or licenses, but I don't think dealing with them is as important as the
GPLv2 files. I'm attaching licensecheck.txt for reference anyway.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860352] Review Request: farstream02 - Libraries for videoconferencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860352
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Dieter ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment).
I'm not sure what to do with this. Are these supposed to be unversioned?
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
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
The following files have a GPLv2 license and not LGPLv2:
farstream-0.2.0/common/coverage/coverage-report*
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (farstream-0.2.0.tar.gz)
Ignore this as we're installing farstream02 in parallel with farstream
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary
[Bug 750902] Review Request: sleep - Multi-paradigm scripting language for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750902 --- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski --- Are there other issues left? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet --- @eduardo "Package requires php-common instead of php" this means that the package "must not" requires php See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP "PHP library must not have an explicit Requires on php or httpd ..." Best practice is to require all the required extensions (php-common only usefull for miimum version, until php(language) provides in RHEL php packages) Tips: $ phpci print --recursive --report extension /usr/share/php/php-cloudfiles ... --- EXTENSIONPECL VERSION COUNT --- Core 5.4.7 4.0.0 413 SPL0.2 5.0.0 14 curl4.0.2 93 date4.0.0 1 fileinfo 1.0.5 4.0.0 8 hash 1.0 4.0.0 4 json 1.2.1 5.2.0 2 mbstring4.0.6 1 pcre4.0.0 2 standard 5.4.7 4.0.0 275 --- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria --- [!]: MUST Package requires php-common instead of php. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP Requires: php-common >= $VERSION. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 --- Comment #10 from Thibault North --- >Would you please be so kind and not rush it overly hasty. Sending a private >mail >off-list asking me to look back into this package and then to approve the >package 1/2 hour later is not necessarily nice. The private mail you refer to wasn't originally mine and was sent two days ago. > Therefore, I am going to reiterate what I answered a couple of : As mentioned off-list, we'll look into that. In the meantime, feel free to take over this if you want to. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862255] Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862255 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-IO-HTML-0.04-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-10-02 12:26:30 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- 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 861893] Review Request: libmongo-client - Alternative C driver for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861893
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Milan
- Spec files placed in sight, fedora-review seek the rpm release number for to
check always the last
- You have a warning :
libmongo-client-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
**You don't have docs in devel packages ***
- just as an example, although there are many right ways to do it
find . -type f -name "FILE-TO-FIND" -exec rm -f {} \;
- Because if you do not build specifically static libraries?
%configure --disable-static
You run rm -rf to delete file .a?
Best 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 856554] Review Request: python-pottymouth - Transform unstructured, untrusted text to safe, valid XHTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856554 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-pottymouth-2.2.1-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 856554] Review Request: python-pottymouth - Transform unstructured, untrusted text to safe, valid XHTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856554 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-pottymouth-2.2.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862255] Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862255 --- 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 862255] Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862255 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-IO-HTML Short Description: Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection 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 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 #8 from Avi Alkalay ---
Fixed all, I think.
http://avi.alkalay.net/software/atomicparsley/AtomicParsley.spec
http://avi.alkalay.net/software/atomicparsley/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-12.fc17.src.rpm
http://avi.alkalay.net/software/atomicparsley/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-12.fc17.x86_64.rpm
I think this is the best and most clear way:
%prep
# 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 fails in the unzipping
process.
# We will (try to) remove this useless leftover directory and the new one that
# will be generated by unzipping right now to avoid problems in subsequent RPM
# builds of the same package and to keep the build directory clean.
rm -rf __MACOSX
%setup -q -n "%{name}-source-%{version}"
rm -rf ../__MACOSX
chmod a-x *.cpp *.h
%patch0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 --- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to comment #8) > It looks like we can go forwards and finalize this review. > > According to the previous review, the package is good and therefore APPROVED. Would you please be so kind and not rush it overly hasty. Sending a private mail off-list asking me to look back into this package and then to approve the package 1/2 hour later is not necessarily nice. Therefore, I am going to reiterate what I answered a couple of : Did you check this package works on all Fedora architectures? Last time I checked, running testsuite on different architectures exposed arch-dependent bugs of this package. Therefore, I am considering to propose to make the srpm "arch'ed" (BuildArch != noarch) and to make the binary package a "noarched" subpackage (Arch: noarch). I know this diverges from Fedora's "common rules", however this would assure the testsuite is being run as part of building on all Fedora architectures, while the final binary rpm would still be "noarched". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840171] Review Request: python-django-recaptcha-works - Django module for integrate the reCaptcha service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840171 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-10-02 10:58:28 --- Comment #10 from Praveen Kumar --- Pushed to stable repo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860352] Review Request: farstream02 - Libraries for videoconferencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860352 Jonathan Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jdie...@lesbg.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jdie...@lesbg.com --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Dieter --- I'll go ahead and take 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 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Thibault North changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Thibault North --- It looks like we can go forwards and finalize this review. According to the previous review, the package is good and therefore 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 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Thibault North 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 862293] Review Request: wsl - shell based wsman client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862293 Praveen K Paladugu 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 862293] Review Request: wsl - shell based wsman client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862293 Praveen K Paladugu 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 862293] New: Review Request: wsl - shell based wsman client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862293 Bug ID: 862293 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: wsl - shell based wsman client. Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: praveen_palad...@dell.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://linux.dell.com/files/wsl/wsl.spec SRPM URL: http://linux.dell.com/files/wsl/wsl-0.1.7c-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: WSL (aka "whistle") contains various scripts that serve as a client interface to WSMAN or Web Services for Management protocol base on DMTF standard specification. WSMAN provides standards based messaging for systems management CIM-style objects. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar ---
Spec file changes:
--- AtomicParsley.spec.old 2012-09-26 18:50:26.0 +
+++ AtomicParsley.spec 2012-10-01 21:57:04.0 +
@@ -1,31 +1,28 @@
-Summary: Command-line program to read and set MPEG-4 tags and metadata
compatible with iPod/iTunes
-URL: http://atomicparsley.sourceforge.net
+Summary: Command-line program to read and set MPEG-4 tags compatible with
iPod/iTunes
+URL: http://atomicparsley.sourceforge.net/
Name: AtomicParsley
Version: 0.9.0
-Release: 10%{?dist}
+Release: 11%{?dist}
License: GPLv2+
Group: Applications/Multimedia
Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/atomicparsley/atomicparsley/%{name}%20v%{version}/%{name}-source-%{version}.zip
Patch0:%{name}-fix_bad_math.patch
-#BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot
%description
AtomicParsley is a command line program for reading, parsing and setting
-tags and metadata into MPEG-4 files supporting these styles of metadata:
+tags and meta-data into MPEG-4 files supporting these styles of meta-data:
-. iTunes-style metadata into .mp4, .m4a, .m4p, .m4v, .m4b files
-. 3gp-style assets (3GPP TS 26.444 version 6.4.0 Release 6 specification
+* iTunes-style meta-data 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
+* 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}"
%patch0
@@ -34,12 +31,18 @@
sed -i '1aset -e' build
%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
CXX="%__cxx" \
OPTFLAGS="%{optflags} -Wall -Wno-deprecated -fno-strict-aliasing" \
./build
%install
-install -D -s -m0755 AtomicParsley "%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/AtomicParsley"
+install -D -m0755 AtomicParsley "%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/AtomicParsley"
%files
@@ -48,6 +51,9 @@
%{_bindir}/AtomicParsley
%changelog
+* Mon Oct 01 2012 Avi Alkalay 0.9.0-11
+- Editing with comments from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800284#c5
+
* Tue Sep 25 2012 Avi Alkalay 0.9.0-10
- Editing with comments from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800284#c3
> TODO: Remove #BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot.
-#BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot
Ok.
> TODO: Append a slash to the URL to provide normalized URL.
+URL: http://atomicparsley.sourceforge.net/
Ok.
> TODO: If the directory is created in %build or %install section, you should
> remove it
> there. Or better fix the build script.
%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
I see. The thing that %prep does not prune BUILDROOT before executing its
content is unfortunate. The original approach with rm before %setup was better.
Or maybe the best way is not creating the directory at all like this:
%prep
rm -rf "%{name}-source-%{version}"
unzip -qq '%{SOURCE0}' '%{name}-source-%{version}/*'
%setup -q -T -D -n "%{name}-source-%{version}"
%patch0
$ rpmlint AtomicParsley.spec ../SRPMS/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-11.fc19.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/AtomicParsley-*-11.*
AtomicParsley.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uuid -> quid
AtomicParsley.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uuid -> quid
AtomicParsley.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/AtomicParsley-0.9.0/COPYING
AtomicParsley.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AtomicParsley
AtomicParsley-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/Atom
[Bug 859731] Review Request: php-channel-sabredav - adds the SabreDAV channel to php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859731 --- Comment #8 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 859731] Review Request: php-channel-sabredav - adds the SabreDAV channel to php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859731 Joseph Marrero changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Joseph Marrero --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-channel-sabredav Short Description: adds the SabreDAV channel to php-pear Owners: jmarrero 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 862255] Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862255
Marcela Mašláňová changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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:
"Perl". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/marca/862255-perl-IO-HTML/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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Reguires:.
= 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)
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (IO-HTML-0.04.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %c
[Bug 860703] Rename Request: tmw-music - Music files for The Mana World
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860703 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: tmw-music - |Rename Request: tmw-music - |Music files for The Mana|Music files for The Mana |World |World -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862255] Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862255 Marcela Mašláňová changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.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 836840] Review Request: gtkradiant - level design program for videogames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836840 --- Comment #7 from bebo_sudo --- Ok, I followed your tip and I made some changes. Now the rpm didn't need anymore so much dependencies. I transferred all on sourceforge, you can find all here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gtkradiant-rpms/files/ To get the spec do this: $ wget "https://sourceforge.net/projects/gtkradiant-rpms/files/sources/gtkradiant.spec/download"; -O gtkradiant.spec Cheers, bebo_sudo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860697] Review Request: tmw - The Mana World is a 2D MMORPG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860697 --- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking --- OK, thanks for the hint. I've added the explicit version number of the latest manaworld package available in the Fedora repos in order to make rpmlint happy. Unfortunately, there is no straight upgrade path from manaworld to tmw, i.e. both projects use a different versioning scheme that can't be mapped to each other. Thus, I have to omit the Provides statement so that the remaining rpmlint warning (besides the missing mapage info) can be ignored: tmw.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided manaworld Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/tmw.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/review/tmw-20110911-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #2 from Gregor Tätzner --- Do I have to add this dep regardless of the fact that php-mbstring already requires php-common? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862255] Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862255 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||861859 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862255] New: Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862255 Bug ID: 862255 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-HTML - Open an HTML file with automatic character set detection Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-IO-HTML/perl-IO-HTML.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-IO-HTML/perl-IO-HTML-0.04-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: IO::HTML provides an easy way to open a file containing HTML while automatically determining its encoding. It uses the HTML5 encoding sniffing algorithm specified in section 8.2.2.1 of the draft standard. 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 799702] Review Request: python-ufl - A compiler for finite element variational forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799702 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol ||ter.ch) --- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej --- Just before I proceed with the review, I want to ask you this: The package ufl-python, packaged by you (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693135), is a deliberate independent effort, or was it that you packaged the "wrong" ufl project by mistake and with this review you're getting in the "right" one? I'm asking because if the latter is right, I would like you to consider removing the ufl-python package, unless you really want to maintain it. Thank you, TR -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Clément DAVID changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||811661 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811661] Review Request: scirenderer - A Java rendering library based on JoGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811661 Clément DAVID changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||858381 (JOGL2) --- Comment #3 from Clément DAVID --- Spec URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/scirenderer.spec SRPM URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/scirenderer-1.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint: PASS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #6 from Gregor Tätzner --- Please request the branch 'el6', too. If you don't cant/want support epel, I will offer you my co-maintainership 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
