[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #36 from Matthias Runge --- @Remi: ok, just ping me, when you're 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 812559] Review Request: python-Rtree - Python wrapper of the spatialindex library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812559 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich --- Funny, it works fine in Mock. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865630] Review Request: python-pyvfs - simple python vfs module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630 --- Comment #2 from Saveliev Peter --- (In reply to comment #1) Indeed. Thanks a lot. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865630] Review Request: python-pyvfs - simple python vfs module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630 Saveliev Peter 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 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 --- Comment #7 from Gregor Tätzner --- correct links: Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/owncloud.spec SRPM URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/owncloud-4.0.7-5.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 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 --- Comment #6 from Gregor Tätzner --- Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/owncloud.spec SRPM URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/owncloud-4.0.7-4.fc17.src.rpm -unbundle php-getid3 -fixes selinux error in combination with latest selinux-policy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #35 from Remi Collet --- @Matthias: please differ this review. I'm searching for upstream information, but it seems Thunderbird 17 will switch to Gecko ESR tree. As I don't know what is the plan for Seamonkey, I think this change will make a "common" package unmaintainable. So I'm thinking of reverting the rename, and only submit "thunderbird-enigmail" And it could be easily maintained in EPEL-6 (when Thunderbird 17 ESR will be there, probably with RHEL-6.4) Will work on this after FUDCon Paris. @Dmitry: feel free to submit a specific seamonkey-enigmail package, inspired from this 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 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola ---
URL: http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_%{version}.zip
Source0: inih_%{version}.zip
This is wrong. It should be
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source
URL: http://inih.googlecode.com/
Source0: http://inih.googlecode.com/files/inih_%{version}.zip
**
No headers?!
**
Static library must be in -static package.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865630] Review Request: python-pyvfs - simple python vfs module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added CC||echevemas...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Hi Saveliev, If this is your first package, need to find a sponsor, tag FE-NEEDSPONSOR in blocks https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Special_blocker_tickets https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group 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 844070] Review Request: alsamixer-dockapp - Simple mixer application for ALSA drivers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844070 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- alsamixer-dockapp-0.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844070] Review Request: alsamixer-dockapp - Simple mixer application for ALSA drivers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844070 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865538] Review Request: datanommer-commands - Console commands for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- Updated release to remove the upstream egg-info so that it gets rebuilt. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865536] Review Request: python-datanommer-consumer - Hub consumer plugin for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865536 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- Updated release to remove upstream egg-info so that it gets rebuilt. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-consumer.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-consumer-0.2.0-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean --- Thanks, Mario. New release with just that fix added. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807432] Review Request: python-tate-bilinear-pairing - A Python 2/3 library for calculating Tate bilinear pairing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807432 --- Comment #7 from philip.worr...@googlemail.com --- Im not currently a packager, still looking for a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807383] Review Request: PythonMagick - Interface to ImageMagick for Python written in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807383 --- Comment #5 from philip.worr...@googlemail.com --- Yes Im still interested, just reading the docs again before I post an updated spec file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865630] New: Review Request: python-pyvfs - simple python vfs module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865630 Bug ID: 865630 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-pyvfs - simple python vfs module Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: p...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/python-pyvfs.spec SRPM URL: http://peet.spb.ru/archives/python-pyvfs-0.2.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The primary goal of the module was to create a simple mechanism to export Python objects as file trees on a virtual filesystem. The mounted filesystem can be used for objects monitoring as well as for the program debugging. But the module can also be used to create own filesystems, e.g. to use them as a sort of fs-based RPCs. More details on project pages: github: https://github.com/svinota/pyvfs/wiki docs: http://peet.spb.ru/pyvfs/ Fedora Account System Username: psavelye -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865615] New: Review Request: python-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865615 Bug ID: 865615 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-gerrit - Python interface to Gerrit Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: fsimo...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit.spec SRPM URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/python-gerrit/python-gerrit-0.0.1-1.gita7ffd76.fc17.src.rpm Description: python-gerrit is a Python interface to Gerrit, a code review system for Git. Fedora Account System Username: fsimonce -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859271] Review Request: php-symfony2-OptionsResolver - Symfony2 OptionsResolver Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859271 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Shawn Iwinski --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-symfony2-OptionsResolver Short Description: Symfony2 OptionsResolver Component Owners: siwinski Branches: f16 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 859270] Review Request: php-symfony2-Filesystem - Symfony2 Filesystem Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859270 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Shawn Iwinski --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-symfony2-Filesystem Short Description: Symfony2 Filesystem Component Owners: siwinski Branches: f16 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Just a quick comment: Please remove the upstream egg-info so that it gets rebuild. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844070] Review Request: alsamixer-dockapp - Simple mixer application for ALSA drivers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844070 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- alsamixer-dockapp-0.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/alsamixer-dockapp-0.1-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844070] Review Request: alsamixer-dockapp - Simple mixer application for ALSA drivers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844070 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844070] Review Request: alsamixer-dockapp - Simple mixer application for ALSA drivers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844070 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- alsamixer-dockapp-0.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/alsamixer-dockapp-0.1-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863563] Package Review: python-dbusmock - Mock D-Bus objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863563 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863563] Package Review: python-dbusmock - Mock D-Bus objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863563 Matěj Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Matěj Cepl --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-dbusmock Short Description: Mock D-Bus objects Owners: mcepl 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 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4583244 It fails again, build-log says: + autoreconf -i ./bootstrap: line 8: autoreconf: command not found Please add autoconf to BuildRequires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854558] Review Request: erlang-riak_api - Riak Client APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854558
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4583191
$ rpmlint -i -v *
erlang-riak_api.i686: I: checking
erlang-riak_api.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded
explicit Requires: tags.
erlang-riak_api.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_api.i686: I: checking-url https://github.com/basho/riak_api
(timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-riak_api.i686: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
erlang-riak_api.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_api.src: I: checking
erlang-riak_api.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_api.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/basho/riak_api (timeout
10 seconds)
erlang-riak_api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
basho-riak_api-1.2.0-0-g785b2b5.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
erlang-riak_api.x86_64: I: checking
erlang-riak_api.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded
explicit Requires: tags.
erlang-riak_api.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_api.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/basho/riak_api
(timeout 10 seconds)
erlang-riak_api.x86_64: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
erlang-riak_api.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_api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
basho-riak_api-1.2.0-0-g785b2b5.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 7 warnings.
Nothing of interest so far, seen the special needs for Erlang.
-
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 *
402921884c51e6dbc44523c224874693122788cdd104f805117287038cae515a
basho-riak_api-1.2.0-0-g785b2b5.tar.gz
402921884c51e6dbc44523c224874693122788cdd104f805117287038cae515a
basho-riak_api-1.2.0-0-g785b2b5.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 th
[Bug 863563] Package Review: python-dbusmock - Mock D-Bus objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863563
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-dbusmock.src: I: checking
python-dbusmock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd ->
systems, system, system d
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-dbusmock.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-dbusmock (timeout 10 seconds)
python-dbusmock.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-dbusmock/python-dbusmock-0.1.1.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-dbusmock.noarch: I: checking
python-dbusmock.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US upower ->
power, u power
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-dbusmock.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd ->
systems, system, system d
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-dbusmock.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-dbusmock (timeout 10 seconds)
python-dbusmock.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-dbusmock/python-dbusmock-0.1.1.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Nothing of interest 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 *
8656feef2aa2f16d6a97fe2a4b854c2d49117623bd08d72d9a16b47c72bd46ab
python-dbusmock-0.1.1.tar.gz
8656feef2aa2f16d6a97fe2a4b854c2d49117623bd08d72d9a16b47c72bd46ab
python-dbusmock-0.1.1.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 pack
[Bug 842410] Review Request: kupfer - An interface for quick and convenient access to applications and their documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842410
--- Comment #12 from Martin Gieseking ---
Here comes the review. There are still some things that have to be fixed:
- You can drop the definitions given at the top of the spec file as they are
only required for EPEL < 6.
- Remove the %{?_isa} suffix from the Requires statement as it's only needed
for arch specific packages.
- Please add a short comment above the License field documenting the multiple
licensing scenario, e.g. "application: GPLv3+, documentation: CC-BY-SA"
- The files /usr/share/kupfer/kupfer/plugin/thunar.py* are present in the
base package and thunar subpackage.
=> %exclude them from the base package
- add the missing scriptlets to update the mime info database
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo
- Remove the %exclude line from %files, and add
rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/
to %install in order to avoid the rpmlint warning shown below.
- It's sufficient to install the desktop files with desktop-file-install.
Don't re-validate them with desktop-file-validate.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
- Replace $RPM_OPT_FLAGS with %{optflags} to use macros consistently.
- Be a bit more specific in files:
%{_bindir}/* => %{_bindir}/%{name}*
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}* => %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}*.1*
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/*.rpm
kupfer.src:106: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %exclude
%{_libdir}/nautilus/extensions-2.0/python/%{name}_provider.*
kupfer-thunar.noarch: W: no-documentation
kupfer-thunar.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/Thunar/sendto/kupfer.desktop ../../applications/kupfer.desktop
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
- The dangling symlink warning is expected and can be ignored.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- application: GPLv3+
- documentation: CC-BY-SA
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The 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.
$ sha256sum kupfer-v208.tar.xz*
65de8fe23e4b91a25910969ae11f32a98ed44714a460c64dfc71a85d20289c04
kupfer-v208.tar.xz
65de8fe23e4b91a25910969ae11f32a98ed44714a460c64dfc71a85d20289c04
kupfer-v208.tar.xz.upstream
[+] 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.
[.] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) 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, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
- thunar files are present in the base package too
[.] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- $RPM_OPT_FLAGS => %{optflags}
[.] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[X] MUST: .desktop files must be properly instal
[Bug 864090] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg - A gnome-shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864090] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg - A gnome-shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865538] Review Request: datanommer-commands - Console commands for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||865535 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||865538 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865538] New: Review Request: datanommer-commands - Console commands for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538 Bug ID: 865538 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: datanommer-commands - Console commands for datanommer Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rb...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Console commands for datanommer Fedora Account System Username: ralph rpmlint */datanommer-commands* 1 packages and 1 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 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||865536 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865536] Review Request: python-datanommer-consumer - Hub consumer plugin for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865536 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||865535 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865536] New: Review Request: python-datanommer-consumer - Hub consumer plugin for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865536 Bug ID: 865536 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-datanommer-consumer - Hub consumer plugin for datanommer Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rb...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-consumer.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-consumer-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Hub consumer plugin for datanommer Fedora Account System Username: ralph rpmlint */python-datanommer-consumer* 1 packages and 1 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 865535] New: Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 Bug ID: 865535 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-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rb...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: SQLAlchemy models for datanommer Fedora Account System Username: ralph rpmlint */python-datanommer-models* 1 packages and 1 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 864090] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg - A gnome-shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864090] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg - A gnome-shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 Luke Macken changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Luke Macken --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg Short Description: A GNOME Shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications Owners: lmacken ralph 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 864090] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg - A gnome-shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean --- Solid. 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 864090] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg - A gnome-shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090 --- Comment #6 from Luke Macken --- * Thu Oct 11 2012 Luke Macken - 0.1.0-3 - Require fedmsg-notify - Include the license in the package - Removed some legacy RPM cruft Spec URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg-0.1.0-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #34 from Remi Collet --- (In reply to comment #33) > 1) You use "nspr >= 4.9.2" requirement, whereas the current > thunderbird-16.0.1 requires "nspr >= 4.9" only. Is it intended to be? I have > not found any mentions of nspr >= 4.9.2 in enigmail source tarball. This (another) thunderbird packaging mistake. Thunderbird really need nspr 4.9.2 (checked from thunderbird sources) I have discover this when backporting Firefox / Thunderbird / Enigmail for EL-6. > 2) Since RHEL6 has the ESR thunderbird version of 10.0.x only, the latest > enigmail can be built with Seamonkey only. Hence it might be useful to drop > "thunderbird-enigmail" subpackage for epel branches. (Certainly, build still > with the latest upstream thunderbird source, because it is less than > seamonkey's one anyway). I don't plan to maintain this in EPEL-6 for now. So the review only apply to Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 768894] Review Request: haven - Next Generation Backup System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768894 --- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt --- Since mere mortals cannot change the "Reporter" field in bugzilla, one way to transfer the ticket to you would be to clone it, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?cloned_bug_id=768894 and then continue there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779
--- Comment #33 from Dmitry Butskoy ---
Some notes about EL6:
1) You use "nspr >= 4.9.2" requirement, whereas the current thunderbird-16.0.1
requires "nspr >= 4.9" only. Is it intended to be? I have not found any
mentions of nspr >= 4.9.2 in enigmail source tarball.
The current RHEL6 has nspr version of 4.9.1, and nss version of 3.13.5 . Hence,
if you relax the "nspr >= ..." requirement, you can change the minimum RHEL
version for "system_nss" from 7 to 6, ie.
> %if 0%{?fedora} < 16 && 0%{?rhel} < 6
2) Since RHEL6 has the ESR thunderbird version of 10.0.x only, the latest
enigmail can be built with Seamonkey only. Hence it might be useful to drop
"thunderbird-enigmail" subpackage for epel branches. (Certainly, build still
with the latest upstream thunderbird source, because it is less than
seamonkey's one anyway).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818602] Review Request: gfalFS - Filesystem client based on GFAL 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818602 Adrien Devresse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-11 11:18:28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790805 Adrien Devresse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-11 11:18:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 Clément DAVID changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Clément DAVID --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jogl2 Short Description: Java bindings for the OpenGL API Owners: davidcl Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856002] Review Request: plug - Linux software for Fender Mustang amplifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856002 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Underwood --- Thanks Ian, that's useful info - I had been digging into this actually, but hadn't actually got it figured out - you just saved me a lot of brain ache! Am a little snowed under at work, but will upload new packages at the weekend with these changes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864090] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg - A gnome-shell extension for configuring fedmsg desktop notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864090
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean ---
Issues:
===
Four blockers.. easy to fix, though. These are the last ones. Fix 'em up and
I'll approve the package without further delay!
I found that if I had fedmsg and fedmsg-notify removed on my system, then
starting the shell extension would crash the gnome shell. Can you add
"fedmsg-notify" as a Requires item?
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Thanks for including the LICENSE in the tarball. Can you include it in %doc,
too?
[!]: 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.
Also, since you won't be building this for el5, can you please remove the
defattr and rm %{buildroot}?
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files a
[Bug 864937] Review Request: zeromq3 - Software library for fast, message-based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864937
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean ---
Issues:
===
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Since you're not going to be building this for el5, the extra defattr section
under the zeromq3-devel section can be discarded. The removal of the buildroot
at the beginning of the install section can be removed as well.
If you can take care of the above two issues, I'll approve the package without
further delay.
Comments:
=
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Conflicts
This is expected and not actually a blocker., since the two zeromq*-devel
packages cannot coexist.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
devel
[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:
"LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/threebean/864937-zeromq3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Review
[Bug 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 --- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo --- 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 812751] Review Request: jglobus - Globus Java client libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812751 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812751] Review Request: jglobus - Globus Java client libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812751 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Mattias Ellert --- Requesting EPEL branches. Package Change Request == Package Name: jglobus Owners: ellert Branches: el5 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865241] Review Request: liblangtag - library to access tags for identifying languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865241 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-10-11 07:42:46 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865240] Review Request: liborcus - import library for spreadsheet documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865240 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-10-11 07:42:02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #32 from Remi Collet --- Spec Changes: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/ed320cdb26aa47079473c7a81ca92f55f287742e Full Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/mozilla-enigmail/mozilla-enigmail.spec I also drop the lcms stuff, as Thunderbird uses the bundled copy (yes, I know, this is against Fedora Guidelines) As only the spec have change, I haven't upload the new SRPM (can do if really required, but will be very long...) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865241] Review Request: liblangtag - library to access tags for identifying languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865241 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865240] Review Request: liborcus - import library for spreadsheet documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865240 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812751] Review Request: jglobus - Globus Java client libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812751 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- Misformatted 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 865240] Review Request: liborcus - import library for spreadsheet documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865240 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dtar...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from David Tardon --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: liborcus Short Description: Standalone file import filter library for spreadsheet documents Owners: caolanm dtardon 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 865241] Review Request: liblangtag - library to access tags for identifying languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865241 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from David Tardon --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: liblangtag Short Description: An interface library to access tags for identifying languages Owners: caolanm dtardon erack 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 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #31 from Matthias Runge --- (In reply to comment #29) > (In reply to comment #27) > > - you should try to document, which files are licensed in which way > > Please explain what need to be documented ? > Ideally, you'd list the files belonging to which license. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios: In addition, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual implementation of this is left to the maintainer > I think I need to change > From MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ > To MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ yes. > > All files have the 3 licences (exactly like thunderbird/firefox/...) > > /* * BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK * > * Version: MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 > -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865371] New: Review Request : SciD is a collection of numerical routines using Blas/Lapack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 Bug ID: 865371 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request : SciD is a collection of numerical routines using Blas/Lapack Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: bioinfornat...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SRPMS: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/scid-1-0.20120429git51236f3.fc17.1.src.rpm SPEC: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/scid.spec Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4581148 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #30 from Remi Collet --- Hum.. I remember why upstream doesn't provides a LICENSE (as other mozilla app) Information is displayed on the "About" page. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #29 from Remi Collet --- (In reply to comment #27) > - you should try to document, which files are licensed in which way Please explain what need to be documented ? I think I need to change From MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ To MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ All files have the 3 licences (exactly like thunderbird/firefox/...) /* * BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK * * Version: MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 I probably I should ask (again, as already requested) upstream to include a LICENSE file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864535] Review Request: libvirt-designer - Libvirt configuration designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864535 Michal Privoznik changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mprivozn@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #5 from Michal Privoznik --- Yes, I maintain libvirt-snmp. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer --- Thank you Mario! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: octave-general Short Description: General tools for Octave, string dictionary, parallel computing Owners: sailer 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 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #28 from Remi Collet --- > - you should review the spec and change %define to %global > - I'd just delete lines 114 - 120 (if-statement doing nothing) This are juste copy/paste from thunderbird.spec. So, I don't plan to differ from thunderbird.spec, as I'm used to. Please feel free to open a bug against thunderbird to have this fixed 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 864464] Review Request: python-tox - virtualenv-based automation of test activities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864464 --- Comment #14 from Matthias Runge --- Interesting fails: f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4580792 succeeds: rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4580798 The latter also executes check. Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.g7sz4A + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd tox-1.4.2 + exit 0 Agreed, python-virtualenv should be requirement. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812751] Review Request: jglobus - Globus Java client libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812751 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Mattias Ellert --- Requesting EPEL branches. Package Change Request == Package Name: jglobus Short Description: Globus Java client libraries Owners: ellert Branches: el5 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 864937] Review Request: zeromq3 - Software library for fast, message-based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864937 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Spura --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'll take this one, but I'll wait for you to upload a new version with > BuildRequires on libtool before I proceed with the review (like we talked > about in IRC). Great, thanks! BR on libtool is already above, but I made some other changes: - delete defattr and remove (>el5) macro to only target el6+ and fc17+ - conflict with zeromq-devel and not plain zeromq - use proper version Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq3.spec SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq3-3.2.0-0.2.20121009git1ef63bc.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 864315] Review Request: lonote - Personal Notebook based on Qt Webkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864315 --- Comment #3 from Robin Lee --- (In reply to comment #2) > Robin, When trying to get in to see the spec, gives a 403 error Oh, sorry. Fixed file perm on fedorapeople.org. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864464] Review Request: python-tox - virtualenv-based automation of test activities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864464 --- Comment #13 from Lorenzo Gil Sanchez --- I tried building your new package in Koji and it still fails if the target is f17: koji build --scratch f17 python-tox-1.4.2-3.fc17.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4580787 Your build is succesful because the target is rawhide and apparently, in rawhide the %check phase is not run. You can check that in your logs for that taskID. If you see my build with your package, the relevant lines are these ones: Downloading/unpacking pytest Cannot fetch index base URL http://pypi.python.org/simple/ Could not find any downloads that satisfy the requirement pytest No distributions at all found for pytest Storing complete log in /builddir/.pip/pip.log ERROR: could not install deps [pytest, py] Also, I think python-virtualenv should be a Requires also. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817779] Review Request: mozilla-enigmail - Authentication and encryption extension for mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779
--- Comment #27 from Matthias Runge ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Conflicts
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gzip unzip
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package -n seamonkey-enigmail,
%package -n thunderbird-enigmail
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
= 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gzip unzip
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n
seamonkey-enigmail, %package -n thunderbird-enigmail
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (4 clause) ISC", "BSD (3 clause) ISC", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* MPL (v1.0) GPL
(unversioned/unknown version)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "ISC",
"Public domain", "CDDL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "MPL (v1.0.)", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "zlib/libpng", "libpng", "BSD (2 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL
(v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.0) GPL
(unversioned/unknown version)", "MPL (v1.1)", "*No copyright* Public
domain", "BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v1.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated",
"BSD (4 clause)", "BSL (v1.0)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown
version)", "*No copyright* Beerware", "GPL (unversioned/unknown
version)", "MPL (v1.0) LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)".
30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mrunge/review/817779-mozilla-enigmail/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is
[Bug 864315] Review Request: lonote - Personal Notebook based on Qt Webkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864315 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added CC||echevemas...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Robin, When trying to get in to see the spec, gives a 403 error -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |realTimeConfigQuickScan - |realTimeConfigQuickScan - |inspec system settings for |inspect system settings for |realtime performance|realtime performance -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspec system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||805236 (FedoraAudio) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865303] New: Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspec system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 Bug ID: 865303 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspec system settings for realtime performance Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: brendan.jones...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora This is a collection of perl scripts used to determine the realtime capabilities of a system. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/realTimeConfigQuickScan-0-0.1.20121011hg.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: realTimeConfigQuickScan.spec realTimeConfigQuickScan.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time realTimeConfigQuickScan.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time realTimeConfigQuickScan.noarch: W: no-documentation realTimeConfigQuickScan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary realTimeConfigQuickScan realTimeConfigQuickScan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary QuickScan 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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 864464] Review Request: python-tox - virtualenv-based automation of test activities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864464
--- Comment #12 from Matthias Runge ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Your new SRPM is failing at Koji:
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4577449
>
> The reason is the one I mentioned in my first comment: koji does can't do
> HTTP requests and Tox test suite does a bunch of them. Unless you trick it
> to believe there is a local package index inside the BUILD directory. Which
> is exactly what my package is doing with this lines:
>
Ah, I should've checked that, my bad.
Adding python-virtualenv as buildrequirement (to my version of that package)
solves that problem (partly). Currently, I disabled python3 tests. I requested
co-maintainership in the python-virtualenv-package to provide a python3-build.
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-tox.spec
SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-tox-1.4.2-3.fc17.src.rpm
koji-scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4580712
and also:
[mrunge@turing SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-tox.spec
../SRPMS/python-tox-1.4.2-3.fc17.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/python3-tox-1.4.2-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/python-tox-1.4.2-3.fc17.noarch.rpm
./python-tox.spec:93: W: macro-in-comment %{__python}
./python-tox.spec:94: W: macro-in-comment %endif
python-tox.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Virtualenv -> Virtual
python-tox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual
python-tox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted,
front end, front-end
python-tox.src:93: W: macro-in-comment %{__python}
python-tox.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %endif
python3-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Virtualenv -> Virtual
python3-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv ->
virtual
python3-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend ->
fronted, front end, front-end
python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Virtualenv -> Virtual
python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv ->
virtual
python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted,
front end, front-end
python-tox.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tox
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 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 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 --- Comment #17 from Clément DAVID --- Spec URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/jogl2.spec SRPM URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: davidcl Updated accordingly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865240] Review Request: liborcus - import library for spreadsheet documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865240
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||panem...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Review:
+ Koji scratch build for f19 is ->
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4580598
+ rpmlint on rpms gave
liborcus-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
liborcus-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
liborcus-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary orcus-format-xml
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
+ Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum)
e37c72d1cdb9f5aab2b8b075c5dcc5b7ece2fd2646d93a1c6128d13bedc91754
liborcus_0.1.0.tar.bz2
e37c72d1cdb9f5aab2b8b075c5dcc5b7ece2fd2646d93a1c6128d13bedc91754
../SOURCES/liborcus_0.1.0.tar.bz2
+ Follows packaging guidelines
Suggestions:
1) Good to preserve timestamps of installed files from source as
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p"
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
