[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Peter, remove %defattr(-, root, root, -), this only for EPEL5 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 753597] Review Request: yazpp - C++ API for YAZ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753597 Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed||2012-10-07 03:17:48 --- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de --- OK, thanks for the feedback. Closing the ticket. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 729512] Review Request: graphite2 - Font rendering capabilities for complex non-Roman writing systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729512 Martin Gieseking martin.giesek...@uos.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-07 03:23:45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #8 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- OK, defattr removed. I will bump the release number once the package is reviewed, has it's own git repo and is available for fedora. I am aware of that rule, but in the review process, I think it's pointless. To add, there is no history track of the spec file, so when pushing the spec into newly created git repo, it will look weird, when doing initial import with release number different than 1. Correct me, if I am wrong. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
--- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Hi Peter
When you state that the package is available for Fedora, I guess is a orphan
package, but when I doing a search in the database of orphans , I have not it
found.
In such case the packet passes through a re-review, with the same rules of a
package new
So should increase the release tag each time you make a change to the spec,
change tracking belongs to his work with that package
Worth mentioning that you have already made four changes to this spec so:
Release: 4%{?dist}
%changelog
* Tue Oct 06 2012 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com - 0.1-3
- Remove defattr
Release: 3%{?dist}
%changelog
* Tue Oct 06 2012 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com - 0.1-3
- Remove gcc
Release: 2%{?dist}
%changelog
* Tue Oct 05 2012 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com - 0.1-2
- Remove autoconf
Release: 1%{?dist}
%changelog
* Tue Oct 03 2012 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com - 0.1-1
- initial import
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 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@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 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #10 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- Hi Edurardo, we misunderstood each other. This is a new package and currently, it's not available anywhere, except github. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] New: Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756 Bug ID: 863756 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: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-xmlbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-xmlbuilder-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Project URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xmlbuilder Description: XMLBuilder is tiny library build on top of ElementTree.TreeBuilder to make xml files creation more pythonomic. `XMLBuilder` use `with` statement and attribute access to define xml document structure. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568023 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop11 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-xmlbuilder* python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml - XML, ml, x ml python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml - XML, ml, x ml python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic - nonrhythmic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [fab@laptop11 noarch]$ rpmlint python-xmlbuilder* python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml - XML, ml, x ml python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml - XML, ml, x ml python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic - nonrhythmic 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #11 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Peter In this case you should still follow the same rules. please see this example http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/1/openteacher.spec http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openteacher/2/openteacher.spec Specifically in the release and changelog tags -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862160] Review Request: valkyrie - Graphical User Interface for Valgrind Suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862160 --- Comment #14 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #13) I think, the license is GPLv2+. The COPYING file says GPLv2, and the source file headers doesn't contain the newer versions clause. That's why it remains as GPLv2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml - XML, ml, x ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml - XML, ml,
x ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic -
nonrhythmic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xmlbuilder
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/x/xmlbuilder/xmlbuilder-1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: I: checking
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml - XML, ml, x ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml - XML,
ml, x ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic -
nonrhythmic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xmlbuilder (timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/x/xmlbuilder/xmlbuilder-1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Some ignorable spelling errors.
The source tarball contains a bundled egg-info. Please remove it before
building your package (in the %prep section):
rm -rf %{srcname}.egg-info
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs for more
information.
python-setuptools-devel in BR could be replaced by python-setuptools because
the latter provides python-setuptools-devel anyway.
The date in %changelog is wrong, should be Sun Oct 07 2012.
The description could be tweaked a bit. My suggestion:
XMLBuilder is a tiny library built on top of ElementTree.TreeBuilder to make
XML files creation more pythonomic. `XMLBuilder` uses the `with` statement and
attribute access to define the XML document structure.
Taking this for a full 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 #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-panel-1.4.0-8.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-panel-1.4.0-8.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 863719] Review Request: ivykis - Library for asynchronous I/O readiness notification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863719
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568128
$ rpmlint -i -v *
ivykis.src: I: checking
ivykis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epoll - poll, e poll
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kqueue - queue, k queue,
liqueur
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev - deb, derv, div
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.src: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10
seconds)
ivykis.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/libivykis/0.30.4/ivykis-0.30.4.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
ivykis.i686: I: checking
ivykis.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epoll - poll, e poll
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kqueue - queue, k queue,
liqueur
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev - deb, derv, div
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.i686: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10
seconds)
ivykis.x86_64: I: checking
ivykis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epoll - poll, e poll
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kqueue - queue, k
queue, liqueur
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev - deb, derv, div
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10
seconds)
ivykis-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
ivykis-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/
(timeout 10 seconds)
ivykis-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
ivykis-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/
(timeout 10 seconds)
ivykis-devel.i686: I: checking
ivykis-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout
10 seconds)
ivykis-devel.x86_64: I: checking
ivykis-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout
10 seconds)
ivykis.spec: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/libivykis/0.30.4/ivykis-0.30.4.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Ok so far. Some issues, though:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
has to be
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
It's an arch dependent package, that's why the isa macro must be present. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
The %defattr lines are obsolete. It is only needed for rpm 4.4, and even EPEL
5 ships rpm-4.4.2. Just remove them.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863767] New: Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863767 Bug ID: 863767 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: 18 Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-control-center.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-control-center-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop display manager successful scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568160 NOTE: THIS PACKAGE IS A STRAIGHT UP HACK. BUT IT WORKS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863767] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863767 --- Comment #1 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- NOTE2: I got this straight from Perberos (creator of MATE). This is not available upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863767] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863767 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-10-07 06:22:05 -- 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 863768] New: Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863768 Bug ID: 863768 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: 18 Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-display-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-display-manager-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop display manager successful scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568160 NOTE: THIS PACKAGE IS A STRAIGHT UP HACK. BUT IT WORKS. NOTE2: I got this straight from Perberos (creator of MATE). This is not available upstream. This package enables MATE to display a login screen without piggy backing on GDM, KDM or LXDM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863768] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863768 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||840149 (MATE-DE-tracker) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||863768 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860424] Review Request: octave-general - General tools for Octave, string dictionary, parallel computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860424
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
I've just read the Octave guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave
The spec templates include the initial cleaning of %{buildroot}:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
This is OK for EPEL5, but not for newer EPEL versions or the current Fedora
versions at all. Vice versa, to match the requirements of EPEL 5 (rpm-4.4.2) we
will need some more stuff, such as a BuildRoot definition and a %clean section.
The package octave-signal isn't available for EPEL 5. If you don't want to
provide octave-signal and octave-general there, please remove that line.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863768] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863768 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||mate-display-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 863769] New: Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 Bug ID: 863769 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: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: phat...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/cura-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/cura-tools-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: cura-tools is a set of command line tools for Cura-providers. Fedora Account System Username: phatina rpmlint output: $ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/cura-tools-0.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-ip.py cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-service.py cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-user.py cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-power.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. ad man-pages: Currently, there is no plan for manual pages. $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/cura-tools-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch ---
(In reply to comment #1)
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml - XML, ml, x ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml - XML,
ml, x ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic -
nonrhythmic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xmlbuilder (timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/x/xmlbuilder/xmlbuilder-1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: I: checking
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml - XML, ml, x
ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht
ml, ht-ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -
XML, ml, x ml
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic
- nonrhythmic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xmlbuilder (timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/x/xmlbuilder/xmlbuilder-1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Some ignorable spelling errors.
There is only one spelling error left.
The source tarball contains a bundled egg-info. Please remove it before
building your package (in the %prep section):
rm -rf %{srcname}.egg-info
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs for
more information.
egg-info removed.
python-setuptools-devel in BR could be replaced by python-setuptools because
the latter provides python-setuptools-devel anyway.
Fixed
The date in %changelog is wrong, should be Sun Oct 07 2012.
Fixed
The description could be tweaked a bit. My suggestion:
XMLBuilder is a tiny library built on top of ElementTree.TreeBuilder to make
XML files creation more pythonomic. `XMLBuilder` uses the `with` statement
and attribute access to define the XML document structure.
Thanks
Updated files:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-xmlbuilder.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-xmlbuilder-1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
[fab@laptop11 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-xmlbuilder*
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic -
nonrhythmic
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[fab@laptop11 noarch]$ rpmlint python-xmlbuilder*
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic -
nonrhythmic
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568198
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking
python-xmlbuilder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic -
nonrhythmic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xmlbuilder
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/x/xmlbuilder/xmlbuilder-1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: I: checking
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pythonomic -
nonrhythmic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-xmlbuilder.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xmlbuilder (timeout 10 seconds)
python-xmlbuilder.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/x/xmlbuilder/xmlbuilder-1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK so far.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
LGPLv3+
[.] 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 *
cdeb3231bfe9caa87abeff64f9eb96c83779eb1748300ac451a37ae4e371a25c
xmlbuilder-1.0.tar.gz
cdeb3231bfe9caa87abeff64f9eb96c83779eb1748300ac451a37ae4e371a25c
xmlbuilder-1.0.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
[Bug 799702] Review Request: python-ufl - A compiler for finite element variational forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799702 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) | --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- I messed up with the package names in the first place. Now I'm maintain that package too because it was review and is ready to use. I see no reason to remove it. Of course, the situation is a bit unlovely due to the naming of those 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 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #12 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- Hi Eduardo, 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 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Thanks for the review, Mario. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-xmlbuilder Short Description: A python XML/(x)HTML builder Owners: fab Branches: f18 f17 f16 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844192] Review Request: gksu-polkit - Command line utility to run programs as root
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844192 --- Comment #14 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Mario, What is the status of this? Looks like it's stuck in stable? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844192] Review Request: gksu-polkit - Command line utility to run programs as root
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844192 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mario.blaetterman ||n...@gmail.com) --- Comment #15 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- testing* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #13 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- You must also build the SRPM for to make 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 844192] Review Request: gksu-polkit - Command line utility to run programs as root
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844192 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mario.blaetterman | |n...@gmail.com)| --- Comment #16 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- There were some issues with the systemd stuff. Now we have a package in F18 stable, including the new systemd macros, and it works for me. They way to get it properly packaged for f17 is somewhat different, but if someone really needs it, I could try to get it working. Please test that f18 version with MATE, if possible. Perhaps I could need a symlink from gksu to gksu-polkit to bring the old gksu behavior back. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #14 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- In a new comment please Example: Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs-0.1-4.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844192] Review Request: gksu-polkit - Command line utility to run programs as root
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844192 --- Comment #17 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Mario, I noticed some mate package with gksu stuff in it. I wouldn't worry too much about it. There were some packages renamed in Fedora 18 (i.e. NetworkManager-gtk-devel) Would you mind if I add myself to the commit for the package(s)? Also thanks for all your help on MATE. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #15 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Ready, I Found -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
The pywbem package needs python2 recursively, that's why you should drop
python2 from Requires.
The folder %{python_sitelib}/fmci/ is not owned by your package. Remove the *
to let the folder and its content owned. Or is there any requirement which
provides this folder?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568239 It fails for f18. From build.log: checking python module: pywbem... no configure: error: failed to find required module pywbem This means, pywbem has to be in BuildRequires instead of Requires. In this case, you can drop all the stuff in Requires completely because the runtime dependencies are checked automatically by rpm due to system calls during the build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 --- Comment #3 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- Removed python2 dependency. Fixed fmci directory ownership. Fixed BuildRequires. Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/cura-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/cura-tools-0.1-2.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 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- As far as I can see, you are not in the package maintainers group. In this case please add FE-NEEDSPONSOR in the Blocks 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 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 --- Comment #5 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- I have been sponsored by jwrdegoede some time ago. Can be seen in this request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703719 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863719] Review Request: ivykis - Library for asynchronous I/O readiness notification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863719
--- Comment #2 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt ---
(In reply to comment #1)
---[snip]---
Ok so far. Some issues, though:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
has to be
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
It's an arch dependent package, that's why the isa macro must be present.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Done.
The %defattr lines are obsolete. It is only needed for rpm 4.4, and even
EPEL 5 ships rpm-4.4.2. Just remove them.
Also done but someone needs to update the EPEL6 rpmlint (0.94-2.el6) as it
reports the defattr issue as error:
--
$ rpmlint ivykis-0.30.4-2.el6.src.rpm
...
ivykis.src:68: E: files-attr-not-set
ivykis.src:69: E: files-attr-not-set
ivykis.src:72: E: files-attr-not-set
ivykis.src:73: E: files-attr-not-set
ivykis.src:74: E: files-attr-not-set
ivykis.src:75: E: files-attr-not-set
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings.
--
New SRPM:
http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/ivykis-0.30.4-2.el6.src.rpm
and specfile:
http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/ivykis.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #16 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Peter the license is GPLv3 or GPLv3+, can you verify? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPLCompatibilityMatrix Change the tag license in the spec please, to continue with 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 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 862160] Review Request: valkyrie - Graphical User Interface for Valgrind Suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862160 --- Comment #15 from Sebastian Dyroff fed...@dyroff.org --- Sorry, my fault. I read the part of the COPYING about later versions again. Mario is right, it is GPLv2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #17 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- Hi Eduardo, changed the license to GPLv3+. Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simple-mtpfs-0.1-5.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863719] Review Request: ivykis - Library for asynchronous I/O readiness notification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863719
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568280
$ rpmlint -i -v *
ivykis.src: I: checking
ivykis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epoll - poll, e poll
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kqueue - queue, k queue,
liqueur
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev - deb, derv, div
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.src: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10
seconds)
ivykis.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/libivykis/0.30.4/ivykis-0.30.4.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
ivykis.i686: I: checking
ivykis.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epoll - poll, e poll
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kqueue - queue, k queue,
liqueur
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev - deb, derv, div
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.i686: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10
seconds)
ivykis.x86_64: I: checking
ivykis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epoll - poll, e poll
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kqueue - queue, k
queue, liqueur
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev - deb, derv, div
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ivykis.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10
seconds)
ivykis-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
ivykis-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/
(timeout 10 seconds)
ivykis-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
ivykis-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/
(timeout 10 seconds)
ivykis-devel.i686: I: checking
ivykis-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout
10 seconds)
ivykis-devel.x86_64: I: checking
ivykis-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libivykis.sourceforge.net/ (timeout
10 seconds)
ivykis.spec: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/libivykis/0.30.4/ivykis-0.30.4.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
No recognizable issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
LGPLv2+
[+] 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 *
9aa71f0dcea69f9877edac4e3091df096fae7112f1cc076e53dbb6823167da39
ivykis-0.30.4.tar.gz
9aa71f0dcea69f9877edac4e3091df096fae7112f1cc076e53dbb6823167da39
ivykis-0.30.4.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
[Bug 817779] Review Request: thunderbird-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for Mozilla Thunderbird
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #12 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks for you comments. But for now, I'm waiting for a formal review. Seeing the lack of interest on this package (5 months for this second attempt) for thunderbird, I don't even want to imagine the interest for seamonkey stuf. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863719] Review Request: ivykis - Library for asynchronous I/O readiness notification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863719 --- Comment #4 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to comment #3) ---[snip]--- PACKAGE APPROVED Mario, Thanks for the review. I'll will remove the EL5 bits from the specfile in a future update (right now I need to find out if there are ppl interested in having ivykis in EPEL5). /jpo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863719] Review Request: ivykis - Library for asynchronous I/O readiness notification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863719 Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ivykis Short Description: Library for asynchronous I/O readiness notification Owners: jpo 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 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Thank for your patience:
Koji Build Rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568306
Koji Build f18
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568320
Koji Build f17
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568325
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.
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:
GPL (v2 or later). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/862850-simple-mtpfs/licensecheck.txt
GPLv3+
[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.
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.
[x]: 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]:
[Bug 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568314
$ rpmlint -i -v *
cura-tools.src: I: checking
cura-tools.src: I: checking-url http://fedorahosted.org/cura/ (timeout 10
seconds)
cura-tools.src: I: checking-url
http://fedorahosted.org/released/cura-tools/cura-tools-0.1.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
cura-tools.noarch: I: checking
cura-tools.noarch: I: checking-url http://fedorahosted.org/cura/ (timeout 10
seconds)
cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-ip.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-service.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-user.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
cura-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-power.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
Looks fine now.
-
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 *
b17b09eee81a6b1e7e8a5012288fa42a554251aeefaf6ec2242e66bab63ec551
cura-tools-0.1.tar.gz
b17b09eee81a6b1e7e8a5012288fa42a554251aeefaf6ec2242e66bab63ec551
cura-tools-0.1.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
[Bug 736163] Review Request: gobi_loader - Firmware loader for Qualcomm Gobi WWAN devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736163
Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
--- Comment #13 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/fab/reviews/736163-gobi_loader/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[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]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #19 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- Thank you Eduardo! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cura-tools Short Description: Set of CLI tools for cura providers Owners: phatina Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 --- Comment #20 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- You're welcome -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863769] Review Request: cura-tools - set of CLI tools for cura providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863769 --- Comment #8 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #7) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cura-tools Short Description: Set of CLI tools for cura providers Owners: phatina Branches: f18 InitialCC: Branches: 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 862850] Review Request: simple-mtpfs - fuse-based mtp driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862850 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: simple-mtpfs Short Description: Fuse-based MTP driver Owners: phatina 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 862293] Review Request: wsl - shell based wsman client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862293
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Some initial comments, based on the rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint -i -v *
wsl.src: I: checking
wsl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Wsman - Osman, Woman, Newsman
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
wsl.src: W: non-standard-group System/Management
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
Amusements/Games, Amusements/Graphics, Applications/Archiving,
Applications/Communications, Applications/Databases,
Applications/Editors, Applications/Emulators, Applications/Engineering,
Applications/File, Applications/Internet, Applications/Multimedia,
Applications/Productivity, Applications/Publishing, Applications/System,
Applications/Text, Development/Debug, Development/Debuggers,
Development/Languages, Development/Libraries, Development/System,
Development/Tools, Documentation, System Environment/Base, System
Environment/Daemons, System Environment/Kernel, System
Environment/Libraries, System Environment/Shells, Unspecified, User
Interface/Desktops, User Interface/X, User Interface/X Hardware Support.
wsl.src: I: checking-url http://linux.dell.com/files/wsl (timeout 10 seconds)
wsl.src: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional under the hood functionality, such as injection of
automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty.
wsl.src: I: checking-url http://linux.dell.com/files/wsl/wsl-0.1.7c.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
wsl.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://linux.dell.com/files/wsl/wsl-0.1.7c.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
wsl.spec:6: W: non-standard-group System/Management
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
Amusements/Games, Amusements/Graphics, Applications/Archiving,
Applications/Communications, Applications/Databases,
Applications/Editors, Applications/Emulators, Applications/Engineering,
Applications/File, Applications/Internet, Applications/Multimedia,
Applications/Productivity, Applications/Publishing, Applications/System,
Applications/Text, Development/Debug, Development/Debuggers,
Development/Languages, Development/Libraries, Development/System,
Development/Tools, Documentation, System Environment/Base, System
Environment/Daemons, System Environment/Kernel, System
Environment/Libraries, System Environment/Shells, Unspecified, User
Interface/Desktops, User Interface/X, User Interface/X Hardware Support.
wsl.spec: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional under the hood functionality, such as injection of
automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty.
wsl.spec: I: checking-url http://linux.dell.com/files/wsl/wsl-0.1.7c.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
wsl.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://linux.dell.com/files/wsl/wsl-0.1.7c.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
And some more issues from me:
A Vendor tag is not needed. Please remove it.
%doc
%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}
This is at least unusual, but probably wrong. You don't have to define the doc
folder. Just write:
%doc LICENSE README-wsl VERSION
If you don't want to provide your package for EPEL 5, you have to remove some
obsolete stuff (BuildRoot definition, %clean section, initial cleaning of
buildroot in %install). The %defattr line is obsolete anyway, even for EPEL 5.
Please remove it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863793] New: Review Request: skeinforge - Converts 3D model into G-Code for RepRap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863793 Bug ID: 863793 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: skeinforge - Converts 3D model into G-Code for RepRap Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@hroncok.cz Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/skeinforge.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.hroncok.cz/SRPMS/skeinforge-12.03.14-6.fc17.src.rpm Description: Skeinforge is a tool chain composed of Python scripts that converts your 3D model into G-Code instructions for RepRap. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- # Not present in Fedora (#859894) # BuildRequires: perl(Test::Dist::VersionSync) The missing build dependency is now available, at least in Rawhide. You should update your spec. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863795] New: Review Request: kadu - An Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863795 Bug ID: 863795 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: kadu - An Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: karl...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://karlik.fedorapeople.org/kadu.spec SRPM URL: http://karlik.fedorapeople.org/kadu-0.12.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Kadu is a dynamically evolving instant messenger compatible with the Gadu-Gadu protocol. It is rereview request. Package is dead because of inactivity of the maintainer. This package was retired on 2012-08-06 due to failure to build for multiple releases. Rereview is required according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Deprecated_Package (the package is deprecated more than two weeks) Fedora Account System Username: karlik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863793] Review Request: skeinforge - Converts 3D model into G-Code for RepRap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863793 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz 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 863796] New: Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863796 Bug ID: 863796 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@hroncok.cz Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/printrun.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.hroncok.cz/SRPMS/printrun-0.0-7.20120924gitb6935b93.fc17.src.rpm Description: Printrun is a set of G-code sending applications for RepRap. It consists of printcore (dumb G-code sender), pronsole (featured command line G-code sender), pronterface (featured G-code sender with graphical user interface), and a small collection of helpful scripts. Together with skeinforge they form a pretty powerful softwarecombo. This package installs whole Printrun. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863796] Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863796 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz 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 863768] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863768 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Since the sourceurl is hosted on your fedorapeople account and you say this is not upstream, I assume there is no official tarball yet, and so this was generated straight from git. I think the guideline ask for adding a comment on where the and how the source code was generated. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL ( ie saying this was given by someone is not a proper way to document it ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863445] Review Request: sisu-guice - Lightweight dependency injection framework for Java 5 and above
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863445
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Hi Mikolaj,
for backwards compatibility you can add to depmap
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-assistedinject.pom
%{name}/guice-assistedinject.jar -f assistedinject -a
com.google.inject.extensions:guice-assistedinject
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-extensions.pom -f extensions
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-grapher.pom %{name}/guice-grapher.jar -f
grapher -a com.google.inject.extensions:guice-grapher
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-jmx.pom %{name}/guice-jmx.jar -f jmx -a
com.google.inject.extensions:guice-jmx
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-jndi.pom %{name}/guice-jndi.jar -f jndi -a
com.google.inject.extensions:guice-jndi
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-multibindings.pom
%{name}/guice-multibindings.jar -f multibindings -a
com.google.inject.extensions:guice-multibindings
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-parent.pom -f parent
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-persist.pom %{name}/guice-persist.jar -f
persist -a com.google.inject.extensions:guice-persist
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-servlet.pom %{name}/guice-servlet.jar -f
servlet -a com.google.inject.extensions:guice-servlet
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-spring.pom %{name}/guice-spring.jar -f
spring -a com.google.inject.extensions:guice-spring
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-throwingproviders.pom
%{name}/guice-throwingproviders.jar -f throwingproviders -a
com.google.inject.extensions:guice-throwingproviders
%add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-%{name}.pom %{name}/%{name}.jar -a
com.google.inject:guice
thanks
regaeds
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de --- Mario, Thanks for this feedback, I'll update the spec appropriately. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 859586] Review Request: gsm-ussd - USSD query tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859586 --- Comment #12 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- fixed SRPM path https://github.com/drizt/gsm-ussd-package/blob/b6d2fbebc452ae4c912ff3e1015b858e3e22ab38/gsm-ussd-0.4.0-0.2.25.fc17.src.rpm?raw=true -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851802] Review Request: compiz-plugins-main - Collection of Compiz Fusion plugins for Compiz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851802 --- Comment #2 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com --- Lot of thing wrong, try this spec and srpm Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/compiz-plugins-main/compiz-plugins-main.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/compiz-plugins-main/compiz-plugins-main-0.8.8-2.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Oct 07 2012 Leigh Scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com - 0.8.8-2 - patch for Mate - remove build require gawk - fix source url - fix plugin-matecompat.svg permissions - spec file cleanup - fix scriptlets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860001] Review Request: erlang-snappy - An Erlang NIF wrapper for Google's snappy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860001
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568484
$ rpmlint -i -v *
erlang-snappy.i686: I: checking
erlang-snappy.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompressor -
decompress or, decompress-or, decompress
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
erlang-snappy.i686: I: checking-url
https://github.com/fdmanana/snappy-erlang-nif (timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-snappy.x86_64: I: checking
erlang-snappy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompressor -
decompress or, decompress-or, decompress
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
erlang-snappy.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://github.com/fdmanana/snappy-erlang-nif (timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-snappy.src: I: checking
erlang-snappy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompressor -
decompress or, decompress-or, decompress
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
erlang-snappy.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/fdmanana/snappy-erlang-nif (timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-snappy.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
fdmanana-snappy-erlang-nif-80db168.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
erlang-snappy-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
erlang-snappy-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url
https://github.com/fdmanana/snappy-erlang-nif (timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-snappy-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
erlang-snappy-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://github.com/fdmanana/snappy-erlang-nif (timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-snappy.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
fdmanana-snappy-erlang-nif-80db168.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Ignorable issues, because there's no source tarball for a Git snapshot, and the
spellchecker doesn't know about decompressor.
-
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.
ASL 2.0
[+] 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 *
dca29cdb3f929db7c1b0bed25459f5fb37454921d1a02fa55ef912f4c65bc058
fdmanana-snappy-erlang-nif-80db168.tar.gz
dca29cdb3f929db7c1b0bed25459f5fb37454921d1a02fa55ef912f4c65bc058
fdmanana-snappy-erlang-nif-80db168.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
[Bug 859586] Review Request: gsm-ussd - USSD query tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859586
--- Comment #13 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
I tried to use such filter:
%filter_provides_in %{_libexecdir}
but provides wasn't filtered.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853687] Review Request: erlang-folsom - Erlang-based metrics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853687 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568538 $ rpmlint -i -v * erlang-folsom.i686: I: checking erlang-folsom.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. erlang-folsom.i686: I: checking-url https://github.com/boundary/folsom (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-folsom.i686: E: no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. erlang-folsom.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. erlang-folsom.x86_64: I: checking erlang-folsom.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. erlang-folsom.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/boundary/folsom (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-folsom.x86_64: E: no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. erlang-folsom.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. erlang-folsom.src: I: checking erlang-folsom.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. erlang-folsom.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/boundary/folsom (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-folsom.src: W: invalid-url Source0: boundary-folsom-0.7.1-0-gc0019b3.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. erlang-folsom.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: boundary-folsom-0.7.1-0-gc0019b3.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Indeed, I cannot see any binary files. Should be BuildArch: noarch. The invalid source is ignorable because we speak about a Git snapshot here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737401] Review Request: saga - Geographic information system with an API for processing geodata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737401 --- Comment #19 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- The proj issue is solved. I also followed your two suggestions. http://www.geofrogger.net/review/saga.spec http://www.geofrogger.net/review/saga-2.0.8-3.fc16.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853687] Review Request: erlang-folsom - Erlang-based metrics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853687
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #1)
erlang-folsom.i686: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
[...]
erlang-folsom.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
[...]
erlang-folsom.x86_64: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
erlang-folsom.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.
[...]
Indeed, I cannot see any binary files. Should be BuildArch: noarch.
Unfortunately I skipped this tag intentionally. The problem is that Erlang by
default requires that all libraries must be installed into
%{_libdir}/erlang/lib which is arch-dependent. Thus all packages are has to be
marked as such even if they doesn't actually contain any arch-dependent
binaries.
I'm really sorry - I should have write Erlang Review but I didn't have much
time for that. This is on my TODO list and I promise I'll pay my technical
depth one day.
Technically speaking it's possible to explicitly set additional directories for
Erlang VM to search for libraries in, but that's a huge and error-prone task (I
plan to do it as well but I'm thinking in terms of Fedora 19 or even Fedora
20).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860001] Review Request: erlang-snappy - An Erlang NIF wrapper for Google's snappy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860001
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for touching this Mario!
(In reply to comment #1)
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Don't mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Choose only one of them.
Done.
One more objection, though:
Please remove the initial cleaning of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, which is obsolete and
only applicable for EPEL 5.
Done.
* http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-snappy.spec
* http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-snappy-1.0.3-0.2.git80db168.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860001] Review Request: erlang-snappy - An Erlang NIF wrapper for Google's snappy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860001 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- OK, looks fine now. PACKAGE 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 860001] Review Request: erlang-snappy - An Erlang NIF wrapper for Google's snappy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860001 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-snappy Short Description: An Erlang NIF wrapper for Google's snappy library Owners: peter 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 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-07 11:56:01 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840636] Review Request: heat-jeos - create JEOS images for Heat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840636 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-07 11:57:07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859586] Review Request: gsm-ussd - USSD query tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859586 --- Comment #14 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- fixed SPEC: https://raw.github.com/drizt/gsm-ussd-package/95bb1d70620cc5616f7526de77edf80acfe48860/gsm-ussd.spec SRPM: https://raw.github.com/drizt/gsm-ussd-package/95bb1d70620cc5616f7526de77edf80acfe48860/gsm-ussd-0.4.0-0.3.25.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 859586] Review Request: gsm-ussd - USSD query tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859586 --- Comment #15 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- %changelog * Sun Oct 07 2012 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru 0.4.0-0.3.25 - dropped xussd - unset executable flag for perl modules - fixed License tag - fixed Requires tag - filter modules from Provides -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 --- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr --- (In reply to comment #2) The missing build dependency is now available, at least in Rawhide. You should update your spec. I had done so but forgot to upload the results to the webserver. :-| I've done so after having updated the package version to the latest and greatest. Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Queue-DBI/perl-Queue-DBI.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Queue-DBI/perl-Queue-DBI-2.4.0-1.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 863768] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863768 --- Comment #2 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- This came from upstream. Do you want IRC logs? How would I prove it? Have you tried testing it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853687] Review Request: erlang-folsom - Erlang-based metrics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853687
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
OK, I've just seen there are no noarch packages for Erlang modules. This
explains some of the rpmlint warnings.
-
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.
ASL 2.0
[+] 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 *
56acc088954d298f6416ffe9bed3725bbdd08ac31b6fb347d412320f17f9b4da
boundary-folsom-0.7.1-0-gc0019b3.tar.gz
56acc088954d298f6416ffe9bed3725bbdd08ac31b6fb347d412320f17f9b4da
boundary-folsom-0.7.1-0-gc0019b3.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
[Bug 863836] New: Review Request: NetworkManager-strongswan - NetworkManager VPN plugin for strongSwan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863836 Bug ID: 863836 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: NetworkManager-strongswan - NetworkManager VPN plugin for strongSwan Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: fed...@leemhuis.info Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/NetworkManager-strongswan.spec SRPM URL: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/NetworkManager-strongswan-1.3.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This package contains software for integrating the strongswan VPN software with NetworkManager and the GNOME desktop Fedora Account System Username: thl Rpmlint is silent; scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4569062 Know problem: Doesn't work if Selinux is in enforcing mode; that afaics is a problem in strongswan; I'll file a bug after filing this review request -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Updated Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtbase/mingw-qt5-qtbase.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-qt5-qtbase-5.0.0-0.11.beta1.fc18.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4568485 * Sun Oct 7 2012 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 5.0.0-0.11.beta1 - Fix compilation failure of the win64 build when using c++11 mode -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854458] Review Request: erlang-riak_pb - Riak Protocol Buffers Messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854458
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4569110
$ rpmlint -i -v *
erlang-riak_pb.i686: I: checking
erlang-riak_pb.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Riak - Rick, Risk, Rial
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
erlang-riak_pb.i686: I: checking-url https://github.com/basho/riak_pb (timeout
10 seconds)
erlang-riak_pb.i686: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
erlang-riak_pb.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
erlang-riak_pb.x86_64: I: checking
erlang-riak_pb.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Riak - Rick, Risk,
Rial
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
erlang-riak_pb.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/basho/riak_pb
(timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-riak_pb.x86_64: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
erlang-riak_pb.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.
erlang-riak_pb.src: I: checking
erlang-riak_pb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Riak - Rick, Risk, Rial
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
erlang-riak_pb.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/basho/riak_pb (timeout
10 seconds)
erlang-riak_pb.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
basho-riak_pb-1.2.0-0-gb895297.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
erlang-riak_pb.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
basho-riak_pb-1.2.0-0-gb895297.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.
Almost the same output as for erlang-folsom. No real issues, as already
discussed there.
-
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.
ASL 2.0
[.] 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 *
d11120ec65df03d58370001daf2d1d5a68165633ba4fe2510eb117253ec6c09e
basho-riak_pb-1.2.0-0-gb895297.tar.gz
d11120ec65df03d58370001daf2d1d5a68165633ba4fe2510eb117253ec6c09e
basho-riak_pb-1.2.0-0-gb895297.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
[Bug 854558] Review Request: erlang-riak_api - Riak Client APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854558 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Taking this for review. Please ping me once erlang-riak_pb is in the Koji buildroot. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863836] Review Request: NetworkManager-strongswan - NetworkManager VPN plugin for strongSwan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863836 Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psime...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info --- (In reply to comment #0) Know problem: Doesn't work if Selinux is in enforcing mode; that afaics is a problem in strongswan; I'll file a bug after filing this review request Bug 863839 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863768] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863768 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- including a log of the conversation would help -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855528] Review Request: pyproj - a python module that performs cartographic transformations and geodetic computations (2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855528 --- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com --- Thanks for your work Mario. The macro-in-comment warnings are ignorable, but could be avoided if you escape the % characters with a second one. Doesn't matter, this is no review blocker. I will take this change on board in my next 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 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 --- Comment #49 from John D. Ramsdell ramsd...@mitre.org --- Please remove the initial CC as I will be the sole maintainer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 --- Comment #50 from John D. Ramsdell ramsd...@mitre.org --- Every time I try to build with $ fedpkg build I receive a time out. I am behind a firewall. Is it a proxy problem or does it have something to do with putting FAS account 'tim' as an 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 720857] Review Request: datalog - A Lightweight Deductive Database using Datalog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720857 --- Comment #51 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- (In reply to comment #49) Please remove the initial CC as I will be the sole maintainer. Yeah, removed. (In reply to comment #50) Every time I try to build with $ fedpkg build I receive a time out. I am behind a firewall. Is it a proxy problem or does it have something to do with putting FAS account 'tim' as an InitialCC? Sounds like a proxy issue. Is https_proxy env variable set to your https proxy? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847794] Review Request: gl3n An OpenGL Mathematics library for D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847794 --- Comment #9 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gl3n Short Description: gl3n An OpenGL Mathematics library for D Owners: bioinfornatics Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: bioinfornatics -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847794] Review Request: gl3n An OpenGL Mathematics library for D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847794 MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.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 863768] Review Request: mate-display-manager - Displays login screen for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863768 --- Comment #4 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- informational links: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/MATE#MATE_Display_Manager http://forums.mate-desktop.org/viewtopic.php?f=5t=125 http://forums.mate-desktop.org/viewtopic.php?f=2t=476 Will create an attachment with irc conversation logs in a bit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863563] Package Review: python-dbusmock - Mock D-Bus objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863563 --- Comment #4 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- New src.rpm is http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-dbusmock-0.1.1-2.el7.src.rpm New SPEC file is http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-dbusmock.spec And yes, it is for the full 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
