[Bug 864531] Review Request: opensaml-java - Java OpenSAML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864531
--- Comment #2 from Spike spikefed...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
opensaml-java.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/opensaml-java-2.5.3/doc/CREDITS.txt
opensaml-java.src:74: W: macro-in-comment %pom_remove_dep
opensaml-java.src: W: invalid-url Source0: opensaml-java-2.5.3.tar.xz
opensaml-java-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
opensaml-java-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/opensaml-java-javadoc-2.5.3/doc/CREDITS.txt
opensaml-java.spec:74: W: macro-in-comment %pom_remove_dep
opensaml-java.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: opensaml-java-2.5.3.tar.xz
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0
[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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[!] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
=== Issues ===
1. rpmlint:
- Invalid source url can be ignored (scc checkout).
- You could escape the comment macro (%%pom_remove_dep) or just remove it
- Please fix CREDITS.txt's file encoding
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867159] Review Request: zabbix20 - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867159 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- *** Bug 712921 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819184] Review Request: qupzilla - Modern web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qupzilla Short Description: Modern web browser Owners: cwickert kkofler rdieter volter 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 810676] Review Request: aws - Ada Web Server (Web framework for Ada)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||868485 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867959] Review Request: libgit2 - C library for git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867959 --- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- There are few bundled libraries: Not a problem: * zlib, regex (in deps tree): only used if system's version are unavailable. Requiring either packaging dependencies or Fesco approval: * joyent/http_parser (in deps tree): few changes, but it's unclear (to me) if it can work with upstream version which is actively maintained (https://github.com/joyent/http-parser) = check with upstream if they support upstream version, you can get a temporary permission if it can be fixed in upcoming versions. * libxdiff (in src tree): unmaintained by libxdiff upstream since 2008, there are few bugfixes and libgit2 specific changes in history. I assume that upstream is willing to maintain it as part of libgit2, so i consider that as a legit bundled library. You should file a ticket to Fesco on these before approval as explained here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819184] Review Request: qupzilla - Modern web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819184 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864941] Review Request: subsurface - Rough divelog in C and Gtk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864941 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 Andre Massing andre.mass...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andre.mass...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Andre Massing andre.mass...@gmail.com --- Hi there! Is anybody working on this package atm? I picked up the spec amd SPRM files from comment 3 and 7 and started to integrate the latest release of gmsh. It would be nice to work together on the package to get it accepted in fedora. However, if nobody else is interested in this package any more, I would like to pick it up and to proceed further and ask for a bundle exception and for reopening/continuing the review process. Cheers Andre -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795
Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|guillermo.go...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #6 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com ---
Please review ownership of files and directories.
Sample
%files
%{_mandir}/*/* claims ownership of /usr/share/man/man1 which is wrong.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370 Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jo...@x-tnd.be Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jo...@x-tnd.be 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 868528] New: Review Request: perl-ZMQ-Constants - Constants for the libzmq library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868528 Bug ID: 868528 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-ZMQ-Constants - Constants for the libzmq library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: j...@di.uminho.pt Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/perl-ZMQ-Constants.spec SRPM URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/perl-ZMQ-Constants-1.01-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: libzmq is a fast-changing beast and constants get renamed, new one gets removed, etc... Fedora Account System Username: jpo Additional info: The ZeroMQ perl module is to be deprecated in favor of the ZMQ::* perl modules. See also: http://blogs.perl.org/users/lestrrat/2012/01/zeromq-perl-rename-to-zmq.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 868529] New: Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ2 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 2.x library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868529 Bug ID: 868529 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ2 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 2.x library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: j...@di.uminho.pt Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ2.spec SRPM URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ2-1.03-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The ZMQ::LibZMQ2 module is a wrapper of the 0MQ message passing library for Perl. It's a thin wrapper around the C API. Please read http://zeromq.org for more details on 0MQ. Fedora Account System Username: jpo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868528] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-Constants - Constants for the libzmq library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868528 Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||868529 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868529] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ2 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 2.x library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868529 Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||868528 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868531] New: Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 3.x library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868531 Bug ID: 868531 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 3.x library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: j...@di.uminho.pt Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3.spec SRPM URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3-1.01-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The ZMQ::LibZMQ3 module is a wrapper of the 0MQ message passing library for Perl. It's a thin wrapper around the C API. Please read http://zeromq.org for more details on 0MQ. Fedora Account System Username: jpo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868531] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 3.x library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868531 Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||868528 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868528] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-Constants - Constants for the libzmq library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868528 Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||868531 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858287] Review Request: gap-io - Unix I/O functionality for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858287
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #3)
The suggestion about correcting make install was to try to
ensure the package is properly installed, in case it needs
some special procedures during install, but besides broken
install target, the package is simple enough to easily
validated, and pass %check in spec as well as work in simple
tests after install.
Yes, I'll try to figure out how to fix make install and pass the information
upstream, but it doesn't seem to be a trivial fix.
Only issue, that you should correct when creating the
git repository is to correct mixed $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and
%{buildroot} usage.
Oops. Good catch. I'll fix that before importing the SRPM. Thanks for the
review!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858287] Review Request: gap-io - Unix I/O functionality for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858287 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-io Short Description: Unix I/O functionality for GAP Owners: jjames Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370 --- Comment #1 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- Created attachment 630488 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=630488action=edit fedora review output -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370
Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be ---
Package builds fine in mock.
rpmlint output:
php-channel-theseer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netpirates
- net pirates, net-pirates, penetrates
php-channel-theseer.noarch: W: no-documentation
php-channel-theseer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netpirates -
net pirates, net-pirates, penetrates
php-channel-theseer.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
php-channel(%{channel})
All of those warnings can be ignored.
Require issues pointed in fedora-review output is false positive, the licencing
issue can be ignored, as weel as the missing %{name} prefix in Source0.
The package respects php pear channel packaging guidelines.
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 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-channel-theseer Short Description: Adds theseer channel to PEAR Owners: remi Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203 --- Comment #10 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de --- http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10.0-3/ Hey, I've updated the spec and makefile - INSTAL_SCRIPT was used instead of using INSTALL_DATA, I've also updated the copying.lib file now everything should be fine .. Hopefully there isn't a last minute thing i've missed. thanks, fabian -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203 --- Comment #11 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de --- It's actually http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10.0-4/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #29 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- (In reply to comment #28) also open a bugreport on wxsqlite3 with wxsqlite3.pc i have build a new wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-7.fc17 package with the wxsqlite3.pc file as you mention. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4611259 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #35 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-7.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-7.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-7.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577
Alexey Vasyukov vasyu...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(vasyu...@gmail.co |
|m) |
--- Comment #11 from Alexey Vasyukov vasyu...@gmail.com ---
Hello Andre.
I tried to build gmsh 2.6.1 recently. Summary:
- It mostly works
- Patches 1-3 should be updated to work with new sources. It is important since
these patches make gmsh to use systems copies of ANN and GMM.
Plus additionally this one-liner is required to detemine libdir correctly:
--- gmsh-2.5.0-source/CMakeLists.txt.old2012-10-17 12:47:11.010138601
+0400
+++ gmsh-2.5.0-source/CMakeLists.txt2012-10-17 12:47:38.149134433 +0400
@@ -976,7 +976,7 @@
# mark targets as optional so we can install them separately if needed
# (e.g. make lib or make shared followed by make install/fast)
install(TARGETS gmsh DESTINATION ${GMSH_BIN} OPTIONAL)
-install(TARGETS lib shared DESTINATION lib OPTIONAL)
+install(TARGETS lib shared DESTINATION ${LIB_INSTALL_DIR} OPTIONAL)
install(FILES ${GMSH_API} DESTINATION include/gmsh)
install(FILES ${WELCOME_FILE} DESTINATION ${GMSH_DOC} RENAME README.txt)
install(FILES ${LICENSE_FILE} DESTINATION ${GMSH_DOC})
I can update patches and spec in few days. I just need to test them reasonably.
If you can review the sources in contrib/* in details - it would be great. My
current understanding is that there is no option to use system copies of libs.
However, may be smth changed in gmsh 2.6 compared with 2.5. I havn't looked
into sources of 2.6 that detailed.
Regards,
Alexey
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4611437
$ rpmlint -i -v *
augeas-vala.src: I: checking
augeas-vala.src: I: checking-url
http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds)
augeas-vala.src: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking
augeas-vala.noarch: E: devel-dependency augeas-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking-url
http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds)
augeas-vala.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
LGPLv2+
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
5b1a3a499698739e493502661f2c100c583ea9648ec4c87e748f350d542a3b80
augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.tar.gz
5b1a3a499698739e493502661f2c100c583ea9648ec4c87e748f350d542a3b80
augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to
[Bug 787517] Review Request: dawati-artwork - Artwork for the Dawati UX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787517 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Just a reminder, sent out once a month ... as usual. If you are no longer interested in to work on this package, please let us know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 --- Comment #12 from Alexey Vasyukov vasyu...@gmail.com --- I checked contrib/ for gmsh 2.6. In addition to modules described in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577#c3 there are few new ones to review. We need to check (a) the license, (b) if we can/should replace them with system copies of the libraries. 1. blossom/ It contains the source code for concorde97 and MATCH (which contains the Blossom IV code) Cite from original README.txt: As a special exception granted by Prof. Bill Cook, the code in this directory can be used within the Gmsh system for both academic and non-academic use. Note that this exception to the standard license is granted only for use within the Gmsh system: see the original email exchange below: [skip] 2. HighOrderMeshOptimizer/ Looks like it a separate module of gmsh itself. Need to double-check it. 3. lbfgs/ Some sources from ALGLIB project - http://www.alglib.net/ 4. mmg3d/ MMG3D from http://www.math.u-bordeaux1.fr/~cdobrzyn/logiciels/mmg3d.php 5. rtree/ One header with C++ templated RTree implementation. 6. Salome/ Few source files extracted from Salome sources 7. voro++/ 3rd party library - http://math.lbl.gov/voro++/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 718317] Review Request: asforza4 - 4-in-a-row in a dockapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718317 --- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- OK, here are the latest files: SPEC URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/asforza4.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/asforza4-2.10-5.fc17.src.rpm The plugins have been removed completely. Now we have no bundled stuff anymore. The theme files remain in the package and are still available from the GUI. As already discussed elsewhere, the FreePascal compiler seems to be unable to produce dynamically linked binaries. And anyway, without forza44as I won't want to maintain this 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 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
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Increment the release tag, each time you update your submission.
Indeed, although we are in a pre-Git state, bumping the release tag make it
easier to track changes.
Nevertheless, here's the new scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4611546
$ 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: invalid-url Source0: libecb-20121008.tar.xz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
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, 9 warnings.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
BSD
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[.] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
8517f2585a427101f9733a9db84c7a531c2a1b7da12cf1481a68ae8ae2f0ecfa
libecb-20121008.tar.xz
5856d96dcf283c9082870a3d43dcb60ae9f2e6850f615e578e9d6360df280baf
libecb.tar.xz.orig
Common problem for any VCS checkouts.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.]
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-xmlbuilder-1.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-xmlbuilder-1.0-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-xmlbuilder-1.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-xmlbuilder-1.0-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] New: Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Bug ID: 868578 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: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines 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/re2/re2.spec SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2-0.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: denisarnaud Description: RE2 is a fast, safe, thread-friendly alternative to backtracking regular expression engines like those used in PCRE, Perl, and Python. It is a C++ library. Backtracking engines are typically full of features and convenient syntactic sugar but can be forced into taking exponential amounts of time on even small inputs. RE2 uses automata theory to guarantee that regular expression searches run in time linear in the size of the input. RE2 implements memory limits, so that searches can be constrained to a fixed amount of memory. RE2 is engineered to use a small fixed C++ stack footprint no matter what inputs or regular expressions it must process; thus RE2 is useful in multithreaded environments where thread stacks cannot grow arbitrarily large. On large inputs, RE2 is often much faster than backtracking engines; its use of automata theory lets it apply optimizations that the others cannot. Unlike most automata-based engines, RE2 implements almost all the common Perl and PCRE features and syntactic sugars. It also finds the leftmost-first match, the same match that Perl would, and can return submatch information. The one significant exception is that RE2 drops support for backreferences¹ and generalized zero-width assertions, because they cannot be implemented efficiently. The syntax page gives full details. For those who want a simpler syntax, RE2 has a POSIX mode that accepts only the POSIX egrep operators and implements leftmost-longest overall matching. To get started writing programs that use RE2, see the C++ API description. For details about the implementation, see Regular Expression Matching in the Wild. Technical note: there's a difference between submatches and backreferences. Submatches let you find out what certain subexpressions matched after the match is over, so that you can find out, after matching dogcat against (cat|dog)(cat|dog), that \1 is dog and \2 is cat. Backreferences let you use those subexpressions during the match, so that (cat|dog)\1 matches catcat and dogdog but not catdog or dogcat. RE2 supports submatch extraction, but not backreferences. If you absolutely need backreferences and generalized assertions, then RE2 is not for you, but you might be interested in irregexp, Google Chrome's regular expression engine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #30 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- i don't see wxsqlite3.pc in git tree http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/wxsqlite3.git/tree/ sources file must contains only sources files. i mean that files under Source$ sections. in your case it will be wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1.tar.gz and wxsqlite3.pc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Component|Package Review |0ad Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #13 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #12) 1. blossom/ It contains the source code for concorde97 and MATCH (which contains the Blossom IV code) Cite from original README.txt: snip license text This license appears to be non-free. Blocking FE-LEGAL for guidance. Is this library absolutely required to use this software? 5. rtree/ One header with C++ templated RTree implementation. This might fall under the copylib exception. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863756] Review Request: python-xmlbuilder - A python xml/(x)html builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863756 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-xmlbuilder-1.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
