[Bug 865995] Review Request: non-session-manager - a session manager for Linux Audio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865995 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-session-manager-1.0.0-0.3.gitae6b78cf.fc18.src.rpm SPEC:http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-session-manager.spec Thanks Jorn, changed as requested -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks Eduardo, added missing BR's and requires. Left the patch for simplicity at this point, but thanks for the tip. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools-1.0.1-3.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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- I'm Sorry, I didn't see the last time, please add BR's python2-devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859731] Review Request: php-channel-sabredav - adds the SabreDAV channel to php-pear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859731 --- Comment #11 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- sorry no support for el5 on this packages, all the deps and OwnCloud server are being build for el6 f17 f18 and rawhide if I am not mistaken. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- python2-devel is implicit in the build root. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588720 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #5 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- I know, but guidelines are guidelines, but any package generated with python must contain the correct python version in use http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- OK, added. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools-1.0.1-4.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 866130] New: Review Request: python-hghooks - A set of useful hooks for Mercurial
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866130 Bug ID: 866130 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: python-hghooks - A set of useful hooks for Mercurial Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: lorenzo.gil.sanc...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://lorenzogil.com/rpms/python-hghooks/python-hghooks.spec SRPM URL: lorenzogil.com/rpms/python-hghooks/python-hghooks-0.5.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: hghooks is a simple module that adds several useful hooks for use in Mercurial hooks system. Right now it includes hooks for: * pep8 checking of python files * pyflakes checking of python files * jslint checking of javascript files * checking for forgotten pdb statements in python files * Trac integration. This includes: - Making sure at least a ticket is mentioned in the changeset message - Updating the Trac ticket with the changeset Fedora Account System Username: lgs Koji build for Fedora 17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588725 This is my first package so I need a sponsor. I've been reviewing other package at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864464 I'm also the upstream creator and maintainer of hghooks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866130] Review Request: python-hghooks - A set of useful hooks for Mercurial
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866130 Lorenzo Gil Sanchez lorenzo.gil.sanc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #6 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- On line 51 you change attributes of configure but on line 54 you replace configure with configure29. Have a look at this lines. So chmod can be dropped. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #7 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- The package has bundled sqlite3. It must be explicity removed in %prep section https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries Do you want to use the package in EPEL5? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862502] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862502 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gre...@freenet.de --- Comment #6 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- looks good, just one rpmlint issue left: php-sabredav-Sabre.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C The Base SabreDAV package provides some functionality used by all packages. Currently this is only an autoloader. you must add a line break -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Koji Build Rawhide
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588734
Koji Build F18
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588736
Koji Build F17
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588738
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: 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 (v3 or later). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/laditools/865691-laditools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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: 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.
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 866118] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP - allows for a central interface for Sabre DAV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866118 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gre...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- watch out for those description lines: php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Sabre_HTTP effectively wraps around _SERVER, php://input, php://output and the headers method, php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C allowing for a central interface to deal with this as well as easier unittesting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862501] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_DAV - Sabre_DAV is a WebDAV framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862501 --- Comment #3 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- Created attachment 626872 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=626872action=edit review_Sabre == APPROVED == see review_Sabre for details -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862501] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_DAV - Sabre_DAV is a WebDAV framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862501 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gre...@freenet.de 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 849026] Review Request: jam-control - audioserver gui app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849026 --- Comment #16 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com --- Sorry for the long delay in responding. I have fixed the file ownership problem, but I'm wondering if it would be ok just to add python as a requirement to fix the last issue? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865995] Review Request: non-session-manager - a session manager for Linux Audio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865995
Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|northlo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
there is such a file.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN, GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/REVIEW/865995-non-session-manager/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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
[Bug 865995] Review Request: non-session-manager - a session manager for Linux Audio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865995
--- Comment #4 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
|[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (non-daw-20121013-git61addce.tar.bz2) Source1 (non-
snapshot.sh)
I'll ignore this, i know how the non-* sourcefiles are together as one despite
being different programs
Everything looks fine to me now so I see no reason not to approve the package
PACKAGE APPOROVED by Jørn Lomax
***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865995] Review Request: non-session-manager - a session manager for Linux Audio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865995 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | 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 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||northlo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com --- There seems to be an error with you specfile url -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998
--- Comment #8 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
%{_includedir}/wx has no owner.
you must use %{_includedir}/wx/ instead of %{_includedir}/wx/*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866154] New: Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 Bug ID: 866154 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: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package) 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 package was orphaned. Upstream is now active - this package is a requirment for another package I'm introducing into Fedora. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtaudio-4.0.11-1.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtaudio.spec rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api - pi, ape, apt rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d rtaudio.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rtaudio-4.0.11-fe.tar.gz rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api - pi, ape, apt rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real time, real-time rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api - pi, ape, apt rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 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 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 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] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Sorry... I'm going to add a desktop file so I'll repost when 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 866156] New: Review Request: giada - audio looper for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866156 Bug ID: 866156 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: giada - audio looper for JACK 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 Giada is a free, minimal, hardcore audio tool for djs and live performers. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/giada.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/giada-0.5.2-1.fc18.src.rpm rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/giada-0.5.2-1.fc18.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/giada-0.5.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm giada.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary giada 2 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 866156] Review Request: giada - audio looper for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866156 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||805236 (FedoraAudio) Depends On||866154 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||866156 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866158] New: Review Request: mate-terminal - Terminal emulator for MATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866158 Bug ID: 866158 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: mate-terminal - Terminal emulator for MATE Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-terminal/1/mate-terminal.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-terminal/1/mate-terminal-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Mate-terminal is a terminal emulator for MATE. It supports translucent backgrounds, opening multiple terminals in a single window (tabs) and clickable URLs. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866158] Review Request: mate-terminal - Terminal emulator for MATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866158 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.mas...@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 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #9 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- You should preserve the source filestamp http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #10 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- Probably you should to separate htmls to -doc subpackage. Not need to reset executable flag for all source file. Improve line 50 in your code. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998
--- Comment #11 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Probably you should to separate htmls to -doc subpackage.
Not need to reset executable flag for all source file. Improve line 50 in
your code.
the configure option didn't work
%configure --htmldir=%{_includedir}/%{name}-%{version}/html
how can i separate the htmls files ?
and how can i improve the executable flags ?
find . -type f -exec chmod a-x {} \;
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998
--- Comment #12 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_includedir}/wx/*
%{_libdir}/*.so
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc docs/html
for example
chmod a-x docs/html/*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998
--- Comment #13 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
fail
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_includedir}/wx/
%{_libdir}/*.so
%files doc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc docs/html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866118] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP - allows for a central interface for Sabre DAV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866118 --- Comment #2 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- Description fixed hopefully, I can't seem to be able to run rpmlint Spec URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP.spec SRPM URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP-1.6.4-2.fc18.src.rpm old packages here: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/old/* How exactly I can check my packages with rpmlint? I always do rpmlint -cv against the .src.rpm and I get a error about locale (maybe is 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 857801] Review Request: TigerVNC EL5 - VNC remote display server/client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857801 Brian Hinz bph...@jhu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Brian Hinz bph...@jhu.edu --- Can someone please create the el5 branch? Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 862502] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862502 --- Comment #7 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre.spec SRPM URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-sabredav-Sabre-1.0.0-5.fc18.src.rpm old packages here: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/old/* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998
--- Comment #14 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
Spec URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-3/wxsqlite3.spec?a=uVC9Y8gWfLw
SRPM URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-3/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-3.fc18.src.rpm?a=j8wkU7m8O4Q
%changelog
* Sun Oct 14 2012 Martin Gansser linux4martin[at]gmx.de 3.0.0.1-3
- spec file cleanup
- dropped chmod of configure
- deleted bundled sqlite3 files
- removed %%defattr in file section becaus of no EPEL5 packaging
- corrected ownership of %%{_includedir}/wx in file section
- make install preserve timestamps
- added isa to requires tag
- improve executable flags for files in the doc folder
- separated html files into doc subpackage
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866182] New: Review Request: mate-text-editor - Text editor for the MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866182 Bug ID: 866182 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: mate-text-editor - Text editor for the MATE desktop Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-text-editor/1/mate-text-editor.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-text-editor/1/mate-text-editor-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: mate-text-editor is a small, but powerful text editor designed specifically for the MATE desktop. It has most standard text editor functions and fully supports international text in Unicode. Advanced features include syntax highlighting and automatic indentation of source code, printing and editing of multiple documents in one window. mate-text-editor is extensible through a plugin system, which currently includes support for spell checking, comparing files, viewing CVS ChangeLogs, and adjusting indentation levels. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866182] Review Request: mate-text-editor - Text editor for the MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866182 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.mas...@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 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 MartinKG mgans...@alice.de changed: What|Removed |Added Version|17 |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 866183] New: Review Request: mididings - A MIDI router and processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866183 Bug ID: 866183 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: mididings - A MIDI router and processor 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 mididings is a MIDI router and processor based on Python, supporting ALSA and JACK MIDI. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/mididings-20120419-1.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/mididings.spec rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mididings-20120419-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mididings-20120419-1.fc18.src.rpm mididings.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mididings mididings.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary livedings 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 866183] Review Request: mididings - A MIDI router and processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866183 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 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 866118] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP - allows for a central interface for Sabre DAV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866118 --- Comment #3 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- Created attachment 626994 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=626994action=edit review Sabre_HTTP == 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 866118] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre_HTTP - allows for a central interface for Sabre DAV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866118 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- (In reply to comment #2) How exactly I can check my packages with rpmlint? I always do rpmlint -cv against the .src.rpm and I get a error about locale (maybe is F18..) rpmlint rpms should do the job, but I'm not on F-18. Maybe you have a bad configuration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866188] New: Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 Bug ID: 866188 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: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK 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 non-mixer is an audio mixer for Jack from the non family of audio software. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-mixer-1.0.0-0.3.gitae6b78cf.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-mixer.spec non-mixer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: non-daw-20121013-git61addce.tar.bz2 non-mixer.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/non-mixer-1.0.0/COPYING non-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary non-mixer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 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 862502] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862502 --- Comment #8 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- Created attachment 627000 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=627000action=edit review Sabre Base == APPROVED == Minor: just make sure to correct the summary before importing the package: php-sabredav-Sabre.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C base for Sabre_DAV 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 862502] Review Request: php-sabredav-Sabre - base for Sabre_DAV packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862502 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #15 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- doc subpackage require only a base package without isa. Group for doc must be Documentation. Also use noarch for doc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #16 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- drop line 68. configure29 allready has executable 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 849026] Review Request: jam-control - audioserver gui app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849026
--- Comment #17 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
There are still one issue to be fixed:
(In reply to comment #14)
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/jam-control/jackController.py
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/jam-control/jackDbusController.py
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/jam-control/jam-control.py
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/jam-control/main_ui.py
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/jam-control/pulseController.py
warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/jam-control/util.py
In your %files list, there's the line
%{_datadir}/%{name}
which means the folder itself and its contents. This is followed by explicit
files, which leads to duplicate listings. Either use
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
or omit the specific files.
Regarding the problem mentioned in comment #15:
#!/bin/python
Such hardcoded paths don't make sense. Better:
#!/usr/bin/env python
or even
#!/usr/bin/env python2 (which is eventually not usable for all distributions)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066 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 --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588995 $ rpmlint -i -v * libecb.noarch: I: checking libecb.noarch: E: devel-dependency glibc-headers Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popcount - pop count, pop-count, upcountry The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prefetch - pref etch, pref-etch, prefect The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noinline - no inline, no-inline, nonlinear The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libecb.noarch: I: checking-url http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/libecb (timeout 10 seconds) libecb.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/ecb.h A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. libecb.src: I: checking libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popcount - pop count, pop-count, upcountry The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prefetch - pref etch, pref-etch, prefect The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noinline - no inline, no-inline, nonlinear The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libecb.src: I: checking-url http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/libecb (timeout 10 seconds) libecb.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. libecb.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 2) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. libecb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libecb-20121008.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. libecb.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. libecb.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 2) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. libecb.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: libecb-20121008.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. Some warnings are ignorable. The invalid source is nevertheless valid, because we have a VCS checkout. It *is* a devel package although it doesn't have the -devel suffix, because there are no other files. You just have to fix the missing %build section and the mixed use of spaces and tabs. I recommend spaces, because this way we get the same view in all text editors, regardless of the configured tab width. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823661] Review Request: lessfs - An inline data deduplicating filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823661 --- Comment #7 from Chris Cowley ch...@chriscowley.me.uk --- Volker I know this has stalled - I have just started a new job in a new country. As such FLOSS projects had to take a back seat over the last few months. I will post an update asap. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #17 from Lorenzo Gil Sanchez lorenzo.gil.sanc...@gmail.com ---
I built the rpm with the python-tox-1.4.2-4.fc17.src.rpm and installed it on my
Fedora 17 box. After installing it, the tox script in /bin/tox looks like this:
#!/usr/bin/python3
# EASY-INSTALL-ENTRY-SCRIPT: 'tox==1.4.2','console_scripts','tox'
__requires__ = 'tox==1.4.2'
import sys
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
if __name__ == '__main__':
sys.exit(
load_entry_point('tox==1.4.2', 'console_scripts', 'tox')()
)
And if you try to use it you get this error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/tox, line 5, in module
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
File /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pkg_resources.py, line 2736, in
module
working_set.require(__requires__)
File /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pkg_resources.py, line 690, in
require
needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))
File /usr/lib/python3.2/site-packages/pkg_resources.py, line 588, in
resolve
raise DistributionNotFound(req)
pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: tox==1.4.2
The tox libraries are installed in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tox/ but
the tox script has the wrong shebang: #!/usr/bin/python3
To fix this problem we can do two things:
A) Don't build with python3 if we are not creating the python3 package until
we get the python3-virtualenv dependency
B) Fix the shebangs in the %prep step as I did in my package with the 'find'
commands.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Just a reminder: Packages are built, but not submitted to the 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 811330] Review Request: pcsc-cyberjack - driver for ReinerSCT cyberJack chipcart readers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330 Patrick C. F. Ernzer p...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(t...@redhat.com) --- Comment #3 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer p...@redhat.com --- uploaded -8 http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-8.fc17.src.rpm now using systemd to do what 'service pcscd condrestart' did before Than: anything else I should look at on the spec file front? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866202] New: Review Request: mate-conf-editor - Editor/admin tool for mate-conf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866202 Bug ID: 866202 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: mate-conf-editor - Editor/admin tool for mate-conf Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-conf-editor/1/mate-conf-editor.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-conf-editor/1/mate-conf-editor-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: mate-conf-editor allows you to browse and modify MateConf configuration sources. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866202] Review Request: mate-conf-editor - Editor/admin tool for mate-conf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866202 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.mas...@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 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #17 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-4/wxsqlite3.spec?a=GIf4Be6OUYc SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-4/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-4.fc18.src.rpm?a=6otGFrrrZTE %changelog * Sun Oct 14 2012 Martin Gansser linux4martin[at]gmx.de 3.0.0.1-4 - removed %%_isa requirement from doc subpackage - added BuildArch noarch to doc subpackage - dropped chmod for configure -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849469] Review Request: pax-logging - OSGi Logging framework implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849469
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mizde...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[-]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java
[x]: MUST If
[Bug 849469] Review Request: pax-logging - OSGi Logging framework implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849469 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks so much for the review! Removed MIT license - not sure what I was thinking (probably copied in by mistake from my template) SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools-1.0.1-5.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 865995] Review Request: non-session-manager - a session manager for Linux Audio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865995 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: non-session-manager Short Description: Session manager for JACK applications Owners: bsjones Branches:f16 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 849469] Review Request: pax-logging - OSGi Logging framework implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849469 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/pax-logging/1/pax-logging.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/pax-logging/1/pax-logging-1.6.9-2.fc16.src.rpm - fixed license tag -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998
--- Comment #18 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
Have a look at line 91
use
%{_includedir}/wx/
instead of
%{_includedir}/wx/*
drop
Requires: wxGTK-devel
from line 51
line 54
The %{name}-htm package contains html documentation
must be
The %{name}-doc package contains html documentation
fix line 50, drop unusual percentage symbol
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849469] Review Request: pax-logging - OSGi Logging framework implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849469 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- 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 849469] Review Request: pax-logging - OSGi Logging framework implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849469 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pax-logging Short Description: OSGi Logging framework implementation Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 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 866226] New: Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-contacts - Plasmoid for contacts from Akonadi resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866226 Bug ID: 866226 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: kde-plasma-akonadi-contacts - Plasmoid for contacts from Akonadi resources Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jgrul...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SPECS/kde-plasma-akonadi-contacts.spec SRPM URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SRPMS/kde-plasma-akonadi-contacts-0.1.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This plasmoid shows contacts from selected calendars in Akonadi resources Fedora Account System Username: jgrulich Successful build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4589126 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866226] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-contacts - Plasmoid for displaying contacts from Akonadi resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866226 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |kde-plasma-akonadi-contacts |kde-plasma-akonadi-contacts |- Plasmoid for contacts |- Plasmoid for displaying |from Akonadi resources |contacts from Akonadi ||resources -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866227] New: Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-tasks - Plasmoid for displaying tasks from Akonadi resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866227 Bug ID: 866227 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: kde-plasma-akonadi-tasks - Plasmoid for displaying tasks from Akonadi resources Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jgrul...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SPECS/kde-plasma-akonadi-tasks.spec SRPM URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SRPMS/kde-plasma-akonadi-tasks-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This plasmoid shows tasks from selected calendars in Akonadi resources Fedora Account System Username: jgrulich Successful build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4589129 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #19 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-5/wxsqlite3.spec?a=kTEYGeIySUE SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-5/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-5.fc18.src.rpm?a=Xq2SdggOjAM %changelog * Sun Oct 14 2012 Martin Gansser linux4martin[at]gmx.de 3.0.0.1-5 - corrected wx include path in file section - dropped unusual percentage symbol from doc subpackage - deleted unecessary Requires from doc subpackage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #3 from Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info --- Pabvel, in Bug 863839 Comment #5 you wrote: I haven't yet tried to build Thorsten's package at all. I'm only using Strongswan and that is currently unconfined except when run from the NetworkManager plugin. I don't yet even know how the plugin actually works. I will definitely try it but it will take a bit time before I can afford to spend time with it. Can I hope that you sooner or later will review this? If the answer is something like a yes, likely I'll save myself the trouble looking for a reviewer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #4 from Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info --- (In reply to comment #3) Pabvel, in Bug 863839 Comment #5 you wrote: ^^^ Sorry for the typo; I know it's Pavel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841266] Review Request: plink - whole genome association analysis toolset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841266
--- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
The license must be stated as GPLv2.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
The build does not respect Fedora's optflags.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
What is it about the R plug-in?
There are a couple of compiler warnings that could be dealt with.
Please use the name and version macro in the Source0 line.
Drop the two Requires.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
install -m 0755 plink %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/plink should be fine.
Why is that installed to sbindir?
Add COPYING.txt and README via the doc macro.
I noticed a jar file in the tarball. What is 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 851267] Review Request: arc-gui-clients - ARC Graphical Clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851267 --- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- Hi, please be more specific. The specfile does not have a buildroot tag, nor does it clean the buildroot in %install or has a %clean section. There is also no %defattr in %files. So it is not clear what you are referring to. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827810] Review Request: obnam - An easy, secure backup program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827810
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
Looks like 1.2 got released, please package that version.
The source url is a little strange. Upstream does post a link to a debian
repository, but on its own site, The spec file points to the general debian
mirror page. The debian orig also causes some false positives in the review.
This is not a problem.
The package is APPROVED
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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 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.
[ ]: 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), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 3 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/paul/827810-obnam/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: 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.
Python:
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= 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
[Bug 829097] Review Request: sicktoolbox - The SICK LIDAR Toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829097
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Did you try to submit your patch?
Don't the other methods work that are described in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath ?
rm -rf %{buildroot} is not necessary.
It must be:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
I noticed the PDFs make up most of the size of the package. Consider a
separated -doc sub-package, as mentioned here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
THANKS, NEWS and the examples directory could also be included.
I'd like to recommend registering the libray on http://upstream-tracker.org to
keep track of ABI breakage.
You can remove the trailing slash from the URL, if you want.
Odd findings: ld_config sounds a lot like ldconfig. The version numbers that
is part of the include-directories also surprised me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866239] New: Review Request: gemini-blueprint - Java OSGi framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866239 Bug ID: 866239 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: gemini-blueprint - Java OSGi framework Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Eclipse Gemini Blueprint project makes it easy to build Java applications that run in an OSGi framework. By using Gemini Blueprint, applications benefit from using a better separation of modules, the ability to dynamically add, remove, and update modules in a running system, the ability to deploy multiple versions of a module simultaneously (and have clients automatically bind to the appropriate one), and a dynamic service model. NOTE: Eclipse Gemini Blueprint can be considered the successor of Spring DM (OSGi) 2.x (http://www.springsource.org/osgi). Fedora Account System Username: gil tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4589338 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: 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 (v3 or later). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/laditools2/865691-laditools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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: 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.
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (laditools-1.0.1.tar.bz2)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the
[Bug 866183] Review Request: mididings - A MIDI router and processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866183 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- The website says mididings also works with Python 3. Did you leave out NEWS for a specific reason? I noticed a tests directory. Are these tests you can run? Do you think it should be built with --enable-smf? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Don't use macros for rm and cp. Including the license file in the main package should be enough. I'm a bit sceptical about how it is installed. http://fabmetheus.crsndoo.com/wiki/index.php/How_To_Run_Skeinforge This looks like GUI software to me. That requires a number of changes in the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- Thanks. Well, I could add a desktop file to run it, but everybody just runs Skeinforge from Pronterface, as I think about this more like about a library or set of scripts. Is adding a desktop file the only think I should do, or should I also create something in /bin ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863879] Review Request: f2fs-tools - Tools for Flash-Friendly File System (F2FS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863879
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Consider to add AUTHORS and ChangeLog.
Better make it %{_mandir}/man8/mkfs.f2fs.8* because the compression method
could change.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks again for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: laditools Short Description: A collection of Linux audio tools Owners: bsjones Branches:f16 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 829097] Review Request: sicktoolbox - The SICK LIDAR Toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829097
--- Comment #2 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com ---
I just submitted the patch upstream, and included a comment in the spec (In
reply to comment #1)
Did you try to submit your patch?
I hadn't, but I just did today. The link to the upstream tracker is now in the
spec, as is a description of what the patch does
Don't the other methods work that are described in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath ?
It looks like the second method concerning a local copy of libtool works. I
got rid of chrpath and am instead using the sed snippets from the wiki.
rm -rf %{buildroot} is not necessary.
Removed.
It must be:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Fixed.
I noticed the PDFs make up most of the size of the package. Consider a
separated -doc sub-package, as mentioned here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
They're a total of a little over a meg, which isn't too huge. They're not
purely development docs either as some has to do with wiring the lasers and
with running the example programs. I split off a doc subpackage
THANKS, NEWS and the examples directory could also be included.
Included.
I'd like to recommend registering the libray on http://upstream-tracker.org
to keep track of ABI breakage.
That's definitely a useful site, but the sicktoolbox isn't really actively
developed anymore. The last svn commits are from 2 years ago.
You can remove the trailing slash from the URL, if you want.
Odd findings: ld_config sounds a lot like ldconfig. The version numbers
that is part of the include-directories also surprised me.
I guess they were following the lms_config example. The toolbox supports both
the LMS and LD lines of laser rangefinders, so i guess it's just an unfortunate
coincidence. If it's a problem, I can rename the executables to
sick_lms_config and sick_ld_config.
The version number in the includedirs is strange, and the versions in the
library names are kind of annoying, but I don't know if it's annoying enough to
break compatibility with upstream.
New spec and SRPM can be found at:
Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/sicktoolbox/sicktoolbox.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/sicktoolbox/sicktoolbox-1.0.1-2.fc17.src.rpm
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint sicktoolbox.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/sicktoolbox-*
../RPMS/noarch/sicktoolbox-*
sicktoolbox.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld_config
sicktoolbox.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lms_config
sicktoolbox-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 866260] New: Review Request: juel - Java Unified Expression Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866260 Bug ID: 866260 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: juel - Java Unified Expression Language Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/juel.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/juel-2.2.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Implementation of the Java Unified Expression Language as specified by the Expression Language Specification, Version 2.1 (JEE5, part of the JSP 2.1 standard [JSR-245]), plus maintenance release 2.2 (JEE6). Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849026] Review Request: jam-control - audioserver gui app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849026 --- Comment #18 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/jam-control.spec SRPM URL: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/jam-control-1.02-3.fc17.src.rpm It took me a while to realise it, but yes! It's not supposed to be /bin/python, it was supposed to be /usr/bin/python. Thanks for spotting that! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866202] Review Request: mate-conf-editor - Editor/admin tool for mate-conf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866202 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866182] Review Request: mate-text-editor - Text editor for the MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866182 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866158] Review Request: mate-terminal - Terminal emulator for MATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866158 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866158] Review Request: mate-terminal - Terminal emulator for MATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866158 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com 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 866265] New: Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 Bug ID: 866265 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: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep.spec SRPM URL: srpm info here Description: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep-0.5.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: denisarnaud Description: OpenTrep aims at providing a clean API, and the corresponding C++ implementation, for parsing travel-focused requests (e.g., washington dc beijing monday a/r +aa -ua 1 week 2 adults 1 dog). OpenTrep uses Xapian (http://www.xapian.org) for the Information Retrieval part, on freely available travel-related data (e.g., country names and codes, city names and codes, airline names and codes, etc.). OpenTrep exposes a simple, clean and object-oriented, API. For instance, the static Parse() method takes, as input, a string containing the travel request, and yields, as output, the list of the recognised terms as well as their corresponding types. As an example, the travel request washington dc beijing monday a/r +aa -ua 1 week 2 adults 1 dog would give the following list: * Origin airport: Washington, DC, USA * Destination airport: Beijing, China * Date of travel: next Monday * Date of return: 1 week after next Monday * Preferred airline: American Airlines; non-preferred airline: United Airlines * Number of travellers: 2 adults and a dog The output can then be used by other systems, for instance to book the corresponding travel or to visualise it on a map and calendar and to share it with others. OpenTrep makes an extensive use of existing open-source libraries for increased functionality, speed and accuracy. In particular the Boost (C++ Standard Extensions: http://www.boost.org) library is used. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860515] Review Request: mate-themes - MATE Desktop themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860515 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-14 20:47:05 --- Comment #13 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- not sure why bodhi isn't closing bugs but both f18 and f17 packages have been pushed to stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Bug 840149 depends on bug 860515, which changed state. Bug 860515 Summary: Review Request: mate-themes - MATE Desktop themes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860515 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860521] Review Request: mate-session-manager - MATE Desktop session manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860521 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-14 20:47:55 --- Comment #14 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- not sure why bodhi isn't closing bugs but both f18 and f17 packages have been pushed to stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Bug 840149 depends on bug 860521, which changed state. Bug 860521 Summary: Review Request: mate-session-manager - MATE Desktop session manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860521 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Bug 840149 depends on bug 853692, which changed state. Bug 853692 Summary: Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853692] Review Request: mate-settings-daemon - MATE Desktop settings daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853692 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-14 20:49:30 --- Comment #23 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- not sure why bodhi isn't closing bugs but both f18 and f17 packages have been pushed to stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
