[Bug 852778] Review Request: clutter-gst2 - GStreamer integration for Clutter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||clutter-gst2-1.9.90-1.fc18 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-22 03:16:42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868809] New: Review Request: libjpeg-turbo-compat - jpeg6 API/ABI compatible libjpeg-turbo library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868809 Bug ID: 868809 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: libjpeg-turbo-compat - jpeg6 API/ABI compatible libjpeg-turbo library Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: at...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://atkac.fedorapeople.org/libjpeg-turbo-compat.spec SRPM URL: http://atkac.fedorapeople.org/libjpeg-turbo-compat-1.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm Description: The libjpeg-turbo-compat package contains a libjpeg6b API/ABI compatible library of functions for manipulating JPEG images Fedora Account System Username: atkac -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845694] Review Request: mate-system-monitor - Process and resource monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845694 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from Thomas Spura --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 868038 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868038] Review Request: mate-system-monitor - Process and resource monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868038 Thomas Spura changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chat-to...@raveit.de --- Comment #7 from Thomas Spura --- *** Bug 845694 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 864531] Review Request: opensaml-java - Java OpenSAML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864531 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann --- Fixed! Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/opensaml-java/2.5.3-2/opensaml-java.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/opensaml-java/2.5.3-2/opensaml-java-2.5.3-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libecb Short Description: Compiler built-ins Owners: ppisar 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 868837] New: Review Request: python-pgu - Modules for writing games with PyGame
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868837 Bug ID: 868837 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-pgu - Modules for writing games with PyGame Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mivano...@kg.ac.rs Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://imi.pmf.kg.ac.rs/~milos/fedora/python-pgu/python-pgu.spec SRPM URL: http://imi.pmf.kg.ac.rs/~milos/fedora/python-pgu/python-pgu-0.18-0.fc17.src.rpm Description: PGU is a collection of useful modules for writing games with PyGame. At the moment the project consists of: - Tools for editing tile-based levels - A module for creating GUIs - A set of general-purpose game libraries Fedora Account System Username: mivanovic My motivation to package pgu is that version 0.12 which resides in f16/f17/f18 repo is totally outdated. This is my first package and a sponsor is needed, perhaps a person involved with python-pygame, since python-pgu is an extension of pygame. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868838] New: Review Request: nepomukshell - Debugging and maintenance tool for Nepomuk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868838 Bug ID: 868838 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: nepomukshell - Debugging and maintenance tool for Nepomuk Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dvra...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomukshell.spec SRPM URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomukshell-0.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Nepomuk maintenance and debugging tool for Nepomuk aimed for KDE and Nepomuk developers Fedora Account System Username: dvratil Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4614457 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868844] New: Review Request: nepomuk-music-kio-slave - KIO Slave to access Nepomuk-indexed music files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868844 Bug ID: 868844 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: nepomuk-music-kio-slave - KIO Slave to access Nepomuk-indexed music files Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dvra...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomuk-music-kio-slave.spec SRPM URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomuk-music-kio-slave-0.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A KIO Slave that provides music:// protocol to access music files indexed by Nepomuk by artists or genres. Fedora Account System Username: dvratil Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4614486 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850641] Review Request: perl-AI-Categorizer - Automatic Text Categorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850641 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Emmanuel Seyman --- Perl default filter is now included. Rpmlint now gives me a warning: perl-AI-Categorizer.src: W: strange-permission AI-Categorizer-0.09.tar.gz 0444L 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Please fix this on checkin. PASS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850641] Review Request: perl-AI-Categorizer - Automatic Text Categorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850641 Mathieu Bridon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon --- Thanks for the review Emmanuel! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-AI-Categorizer Short Description: Automatic Text Categorization Owners: bochecha Branches: devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864531] Review Request: opensaml-java - Java OpenSAML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864531 Spike changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Spike --- *** 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 864531] Review Request: opensaml-java - Java OpenSAML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864531 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: opensaml-java Short Description: Java OpenSAML library Owners: goldmann Branches: f17 f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868879] New: Review Request: perl-TAP-SimpleOutput - Simple closure-driven TAP generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868879 Bug ID: 868879 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-TAP-SimpleOutput - Simple closure-driven TAP generator Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-TAP-SimpleOutput/perl-TAP-SimpleOutput.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-TAP-SimpleOutput/perl-TAP-SimpleOutput-0.001-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: We provide one function, counters(), that returns a number of simple closures designed to help output TAP easily and correctly, with a minimum of fuss. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868879] Review Request: perl-TAP-SimpleOutput - Simple closure-driven TAP generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868879 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||868635 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864481] Review Request: Django14 - A high-level Python Web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864481 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- Django14-1.4.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Django14-1.4.2-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837446] Review Request: android-opengl-api - Google Android Java ME Library (Khronos)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837446 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 850641] Review Request: perl-AI-Categorizer - Automatic Text Categorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850641 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858287] Review Request: gap-io - Unix I/O functionality for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858287 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864531] Review Request: opensaml-java - Java OpenSAML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864531 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868809] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo-compat - jpeg6 API/ABI compatible libjpeg-turbo library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868809 Tomas Hozza changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tho...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 Peter Rajnoha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||prajn...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Peter Rajnoha --- A few bits I've spotted related to the dependencies and usability: As for the Requires: lvm >= ... in the spec file - the tool is supposed to be used with btrfs and/or LVM. However, one can have LVM installed, but not btrfs tools or vice versa. Creating a requirement for both will bring in both btrfs tools as well as LVM tools. Taking into account that snapper works only with mounted volumes, these must have been activated before. In case of LVM, we can't activate without having LVM tools installed - so we couldn't even use that LVM mountpoint on command line if LVM tools were not installed. The same applies for btrfs tools I guess... So it's disputable whether it's really necessary to add a requirement for lvm/btrfs tools (as without having these devs mounted and activated, we couldn't even refer to them). Also, I'd probably add EXAMPLES section to the snapper man page so people can quickly see what to do to create a simple snapshot scheme - just for convenience. As for functionality itself: (/mnt/temp1 is not mounted!) [0] rawhide/~ # snapper create-config -f "lvm(ext4)" /mnt/temp1 Creating config failed (invalid filesystem type). - maybe a better message to explain that /mnt/temp1 is not mounted at all and so it can't create a snapshot in this case (as snapper is targeted for mounted volumes only) The man page also refers to a "subvolume". For LVM, this could be easily misinterpreted as the device itself, not the mountpoint and we could end up with: [0] rawhide/~ # snapper create-config -f "lvm(ext4)" /dev/vg/thin_lv Creating config failed (illegal subvolume). - if possible, a better message would be welcome that would explain that we can't refer to devices themselves, but the mountpoints only. Refering to the mountpoint works with LVM, of course: [0] rawhide/~ # snapper create-config -f "lvm(ext4)" /mnt/temp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||libecb-0.20121008-1.fc19 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 --- Comment #11 from Peter Rajnoha --- (In reply to comment #10) > installed. The same applies for btrfs tools I guess... So it's disputable > whether it's really necessary to add a requirement for lvm/btrfs tools (as > without having these devs mounted and activated, we couldn't even refer to > them). (...if the introduction of the snapshot feature of each of these backends used was added later than the basic functionality of the backend, then the Requires field is needed, of course... otherwise I think we don't need 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 868908] New: Review Request: rubygem-gem-nice-install - A RubyGems plugin that improves gem installation user experience
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868908 Bug ID: 868908 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: rubygem-gem-nice-install - A RubyGems plugin that improves gem installation user experience Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: jstri...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-gem-nice-install-0.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-gem-nice-install.spec Description: A RubyGems plugin that improves gem installation user experience. If binary extension build fails, it tries to install its development dependencies. Fedora Account System Username: jstribny Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4614858 This is my second package review request for Fedora, so I need a sponsor. I wasn't sure about setting LANG env variable before `gem install` in the spec file, but it wouldn't work otherwise. I submitted this issue [1] to upstream. [1] https://github.com/voxik/gem-nice-install/issues/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 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- libecb-0.20121008-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libecb-0.20121008-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868908] Review Request: rubygem-gem-nice-install - A RubyGems plugin that improves gem installation user experience
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868908 Josef Stribny 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 861893] Review Request: libmongo-client - Alternative C driver for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861893 Milan Bartos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-22 08:55:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858613] Review Request: ceelog - Tool for receiving, filtering and searching CEE/Lumberjack logs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858613 Milan Bartos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-22 08:56:30 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-theseer-1.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-theseer-1.3-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865535] Review Request: python-datanommer-models - SQLAlchemy models for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean --- New release removes Conflicts tag with the old datanommer. Rely on the implicit file conflict instead of an explicit versioned package conflict. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-4.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 865536] Review Request: python-datanommer-consumer - Hub consumer plugin for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865536 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean --- New release removes Conflicts tag with the old datanommer. Rely on the implicit file conflict instead of an explicit versioned package conflict. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-consumer.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-consumer-0.2.0-4.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 865538] Review Request: datanommer-commands - Console commands for datanommer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865538 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean --- New release removes Conflicts tag with the old datanommer. Rely on the implicit file conflict instead of an explicit versioned package conflict. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/datanommer-commands-0.2.0-4.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 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-theseer-1.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-theseer-1.3-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866370] Review Request: php-channel-theseer - Adds theseer channel to PEAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866370 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-theseer-1.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-theseer-1.3-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #19 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- As noted previously, the Blossom license is non-free due to the use restriction. It is unclear whether that restriction also applies to distribution outside of a gmsh context, and since there is already infrastructure setup to remove other code bits, please also remove the Blossom code from the gmsh source. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868930] New: Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868930 Bug ID: 868930 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: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@satgnu.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/sshuttle.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sshuttle-20121019-2.gitg9ce2fa0.fc17.src.rpm Description: Transparent proxy server that works as a poor man's VPN. Forwards over ssh. Doesn't require admin. Works with Linux and MacOS. Supports DNS tunneling. Fedora Account System Username: maci Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4615409 This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I have some more packages I want to get into Fedora, mainly s3ql and its dependencies ( http://code.google.com/p/s3ql/ ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] New: Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 Bug ID: 868931 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: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@satgnu.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/sshuttle.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sshuttle-20121019-2.gitg9ce2fa0.fc17.src.rpm Description: Transparent proxy server that works as a poor man's VPN. Forwards over ssh. Doesn't require admin. Works with Linux and MacOS. Supports DNS tunneling. Fedora Account System Username: maci Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4615409 This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I have some more packages I want to get into Fedora, mainly s3ql and its dependencies ( http://code.google.com/p/s3ql/ ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 Marcel Wysocki 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 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson --- Marcel: what's your FAS username and I'll sponsor you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 --- Comment #2 from Marcel Wysocki --- Fedora Account System Username: maci -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868936] New: Review Request: python-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 Bug ID: 868936 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-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@satgnu.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-apsw.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-apsw-3.7.11.r1-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: APSW is a Python wrapper for the SQLite embedded relational database engine. In contrast to other wrappers such as pysqlite it focuses on being a minimal layer over SQLite attempting just to translate the complete SQLite API into Python. Fedora Account System Username: maci Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4615511 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868939] New: Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 Bug ID: 868939 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-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@satgnu.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-llfuse.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-llfuse-0.37.1-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: LLFUSE is a set of Python bindings for the low level FUSE API. It requires at least FUSE 2.8.0 and supports both Python 2.x and 3.x. Fedora Account System Username: maci Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4615554 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868940] New: Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 Bug ID: 868940 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: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@satgnu.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/s3ql.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/s3ql-1.12-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: S3QL is a file system that stores all its data online using storage services like Google Storage, Amazon S3 or OpenStack. S3QL effectively provides a hard disk of dynamic, infinite capacity that can be accessed from any computer with Internet access. S3QL is a standard conforming, full featured UNIX file system that is conceptually indistinguishable from any local file system. Furthermore, S3QL has additional features like compression, encryption, data de-duplication, immutable trees and snapshotting which make it especially suitable for on-line backup and archival. S3QL is designed to favor simplicity and elegance over performance and feature- creep. Care has been taken to make the source code as readable and serviceable as possible. Solid error detection and error handling have been included from the very first line, and S3QL comes with extensive automated test cases for all its components. Fedora Account System Username: maci Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4615586 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 Marcel Wysocki changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||868936, 868939 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868936] Review Request: python-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 Marcel Wysocki changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||868940 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 Marcel Wysocki changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||868940 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868947] New: Review Request: nepomuktvnamer - Nepomuk TV shows manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868947 Bug ID: 868947 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: nepomuktvnamer - Nepomuk TV shows manager Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dvra...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomuktvnamer.spec SRPM URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/nepomuktvnamer-0.2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A Nepomuk-based TV show manager. You can run it from context menu in Dolphin or Konqueror. It will automatically look up all information about all TV series in the folder on thetvdb.com and store them in Nepomuk. Fedora Account System Username: dvratil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Dan Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||868947 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868947] Review Request: nepomuktvnamer - Nepomuk TV shows manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868947 Dan Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||868717 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853514] Review Request: rubygem-clouddb - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud DB service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853514 Guillermo Gómez changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Guillermo Gómez --- :) Issues fixed 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 839652] Review Request: rubygem-colored - Add some color to your life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839652 --- Comment #6 from Maros Zatko --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-temple Short Description: Extends ruby string class in order to colorize terminal output Owners: mzatko Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868930] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868930 Marcel Wysocki changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-10-22 10:39:43 --- Comment #1 from Marcel Wysocki --- woops, created it twice *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 868931 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 --- Comment #3 from Marcel Wysocki --- *** Bug 868930 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 868809] Review Request: libjpeg-turbo-compat - jpeg6 API/ABI compatible libjpeg-turbo library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868809
--- Comment #1 from Tomas Hozza ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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: Patch0 (libjpeg-turbo12-noinst.patch) Source0 (libjpeg-
turbo-1.2.1.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 839653] Review Request: rubygem-slim - Slim is a template language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839653 --- Comment #19 from Maros Zatko --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-slim Short Description: Slim is a template language Owners: mzatko Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811330] Review Request: pcsc-cyberjack - driver for ReinerSCT cyberJack chipcart readers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330 Ngo Than changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Ngo Than --- rpmlint outputs: pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> con tactless, con-tactless, contact less pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chipcard -> chip card, chip-card, chipboard pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> con tactless, con-tactless, contact less * i'm not sure if the descriptions are correct in en_US. Patrick, could you please check again? pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules * please add %config(noreplace) pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd-cyberjack.so * it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no devel package pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-documentation pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cjflash * your package doesn't have man pages, please ask upstream to add man page in the future, it's only should fix. pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_ascii.c pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_fpin2.c 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings * the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839650] Review Request: rubygem-awesome_print - Pretty print Ruby objects with proper indentation and colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839650 --- Comment #6 from Maros Zatko --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-awesome_print Short Description: Pretty print Ruby objects with proper indentation and colors Owners: mzatko Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832504] Review Request: pesign - Utility for signing UEFI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 --- Comment #13 from Peter Jones --- (In reply to comment #12) > I don't know whether it is just me, my system or something else, but I am > experiencing quite a few problems with this package: Please refer to Bug > 868581, Bug 868590, Bug 868591 and Bug 868720. > > I've got around the first 3 bugs, but the last one is a deal-breaker for me > - I can't sign anything! > > The version I originally used was 0.99 (sourced from the srpm provided in > Rawhide), but since it cannot compile at all, I fetched the latest source > from git as of yesterday 20 Oct 2012, archived it, and then dropped it in my > SOURCE directory for rpmbuild to pick up. It appears you're not having *any* problems with the package, but instead having problems building from git on some older (or other) distribution that this package isn't included in. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717
Jan Grulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgrul...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich ---
I think you should use KDE macros like %{cmake_kde4}, %{_kde4_libdir} etc. You
have also mistake in %changelog because entries must start with *.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845591] Review Request: qwt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845591 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845591] Review Request: qwt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845591 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- qwt-6.0.1-1.fc18,qwt5-5.2.2-21.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qwt-6.0.1-1.fc18,qwt5-5.2.2-21.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 866982] Review Request: rubygem-gem-patch - RubyGems plugin for patching gems.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866982 --- Comment #6 from Josef Stribny --- Thanks, I fixed the issues you listed and also upgraded to gem-patch-0.1.3: SPEC: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-gem-patch.spec SRPM: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-gem-patch-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4615807 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856858] Review Request: Jokte - Latam CMS, Joomla Fork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856858 --- Comment #9 from Juan Botero --- Hello. I Now have the Spec File, updated in: http://jpill.fedorapeople.org/jokte/ The koji build in: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4481815 but i don't know what do i miss? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868838] Review Request: nepomukshell - Debugging and maintenance tool for Nepomuk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868838
Jan Grulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgrul...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %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.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL", "LGPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/grulja/Downloads/868838-nepomukshell/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstrea
[Bug 868844] Review Request: nepomuk-music-kio-slave - KIO Slave to access Nepomuk-indexed music files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868844
Jan Grulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgrul...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %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.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/grulja/Downloads/868844-nepomuk-
music-kio-slave/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -
[Bug 868844] Review Request: nepomuk-music-kio-slave - KIO Slave to access Nepomuk-indexed music files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868844
--- Comment #2 from Jan Grulich ---
Patch should have %{name} prefix and you should use kde4 macros.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832504] Review Request: pesign - Utility for signing UEFI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 --- Comment #14 from Mr-4 --- Please refer to the bugs I indicated above, particularly Bug 868720. As I already pointed out in Comment 12 above, although I could get around the first 3 bugs, the last one (Bug 868720) is a show-stopper for me. As for your last sentence in Comment 13, as far as I am aware pesign is still in rawhide and it is not provided as part of any distros (not yet, anyway), nor does it specify anywhere - either in the README, TODO, its .spec file or anywhere else - that it needs to be build for, or using specific, distribution. Finally, as far as I can read in the original submission, this is a review request, which is precisely what I have done with my Comment 12 above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868947] Review Request: nepomuktvnamer - Nepomuk TV shows manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868947
Jan Grulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgrul...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich ---
Same as in #868844. Patch should have %{name} prefix and you should use kde4
macros.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832504] Review Request: pesign - Utility for signing UEFI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi --- This bug is for the packaging of the application to make sure it meets Fedora's standards in packaging. It does, it's been approved. Bugs in the package should now be filed seperately (as you have done) and worked there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837689] Review Request: pkgwat - CLI tool for querying the fedora packages webapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837689
Luke Macken changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Luke Macken ---
Looks good! APPROVED
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.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n
python3-pkgwat
[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:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/lmacken/837689-pkgwat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package 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.
[x]: 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)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile a
[Bug 840602] Review Request: maradns - Authoritative and recursive DNS server made with security in mind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602 --- Comment #5 from Tomasz Torcz --- Created attachment 631638 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=631638&action=edit .spec changes Thank you. Please see -3 with issues fixed. Spec URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns.spec SRPM URL: http://ttorcz.fedorapeople.org/maradns-2.0.06-3.fc18.src.rpm Scratch : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4616000 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845403] Review Request: onesixtyone - An efficient SNMP scanner - unretire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845403 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845403] Review Request: onesixtyone - An efficient SNMP scanner - unretire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845403 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- onesixtyone-0.3.2-8.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
[Bug 822718] Review Request: libesedb - Library to access the Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) Database File (EDB) format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822718 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822718] Review Request: libesedb - Library to access the Extensible Storage Engine (ESE) Database File (EDB) format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822718 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- libesedb-20120102-3.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
[Bug 837689] Review Request: pkgwat - CLI tool for querying the fedora packages webapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837689 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pkgwat Short Description: CLI tool for querying the fedora packages webapp Owners: ralph Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837689] Review Request: pkgwat - CLI tool for querying the fedora packages webapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837689 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811330] Review Request: pcsc-cyberjack - driver for ReinerSCT cyberJack chipcart readers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330 Patrick C. F. Ernzer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(t...@redhat.com) --- Comment #9 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer --- Than, thanks. Much appreciated. Seems rpmlint on my build box is way less strict than it should be. (In reply to comment #8) > rpmlint outputs: [...] > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard -> chip card, > chip-card, chipboard the next release of the spec file will use 'chip card' [...] > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> > con tactless, con-tactless, contact less after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next release [...] > * i'm not sure if the descriptions are correct in en_US. Patrick, could you > please check again? You're right, they did need fixing. > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag > /etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules > > * please add %config(noreplace) done > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd- > cyberjack.so > > * it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no > devel package This one I am not sure about, I _think_ the .so needs to remain in that location (compare pcsc-lite-ccid). But it will need someone more competent in PC/SC than me to confirm. > pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-documentation > pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cjflash > > * your package doesn't have man pages, please ask upstream to add man page > in the future, it's only should fix. I've asked upstream via their web form. there is a small section about cjflash in the README.* files of the main package. As this sub-package depends on the main one, should I maybe add a README.Fedora to the sub-package that points to the main's README? > pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_ascii.c > pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_fpin2.c > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings > > * the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or [...] Also asked this from upstream. Do I remember correctly that I am NOT to patch these two files until upstream released an updated version or is it OK for me to patch the address in this version and then revert my patch once upstream fixed 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 811330] Review Request: pcsc-cyberjack - driver for ReinerSCT cyberJack chipcart readers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330 --- Comment #10 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer --- FWIW: those things I already did fix are now uploaded. spec file at http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec and packages in http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-9/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #11 from Kalev Lember --- (In reply to comment #9) > > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> > > con tactless, con-tactless, contact less > > after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next > release The dictionary that rpmlint uses obviously just doesn't know the technical term. No need to fix every single rpmlint warning; we don't have to make all packages rpmlint clean. This warning is rpmlint saying "Hey, I've noticed a possible issue with your package, please check if this needs fixing." > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag > > /etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules > > > > * please add %config(noreplace) I think this is wrong in two ways: a) the file isn't really meant to be modified by the user, and as such shouldn't be marked %config(noreplace); b) it should be installed in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ instead so that it's clear that it's a system file shipped by a package and not a config file that can be modified. So in this case rpmlint caught a valid issue but the fix isn't adding %config(noreplace), but instead moving the file to another directory. > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd- > > cyberjack.so > > > > * it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no > > devel package > > This one I am not sure about, I _think_ the .so needs to remain in that > location (compare pcsc-lite-ccid). But it will need someone more competent > in PC/SC than me to confirm. Yes. pcscd dlopens the .so file directly and it's needed for proper functioning. This .so file is a pcscd plugin. Another case of rpmlint warning about a possible issue but where we know better. > > * the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or > [...] > > Also asked this from upstream. > > Do I remember correctly that I am NOT to patch these two files until > upstream released an updated version or is it OK for me to patch the address > in this version and then revert my patch once upstream fixed it? Yes, never patch any license files. This is for upstream to change, not something a downstream packager should change. Notifying upstream and possibly sending them a patch that fixes up the license headers is the correct thing to do here. See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700095 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858287] Review Request: gap-io - Unix I/O functionality for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858287 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- gap-io-4.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-io-4.2-2.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 866182] Review Request: mate-text-editor - Text editor for the MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866182 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866182] Review Request: mate-text-editor - Text editor for the MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866182 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- mate-text-editor-1.4.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16253/mate-text-editor-1.4.0-2.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 837689] Review Request: pkgwat - CLI tool for querying the fedora packages webapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837689 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-22 14:22:39 --- Comment #14 from Ralph Bean --- Update requested -> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pkgwat -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901
--- Comment #5 from Florencia Fotorello ---
Hi Christophe,
Thanks for the update.
I run “fedora-review” and there are some tests that failed. Could you please
check them?
--
$ cat 866901/gogui-review.txt
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/Florencia/866901/gogui-1.4.6-src.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : a7cce6b4e314d0048f5e569e5fd43b73
MD5SUM upstream package : 90da61b841b47a1c655c2a01205d2459
Java
[!]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
symlink)
Note: No /usr/share/javadoc/gogui found
Maven
Issues:
[!]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
symlink)
Note: No /usr/share/javadoc/gogui found
[!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec 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 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901
--- Comment #6 from Florencia Fotorello ---
Complete fedora-review output:
-
$ cat 866901/gogui-review.txt
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[ ]: 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 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.
[!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: 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.
[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
[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.
[ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint gogui-1.4.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
gogui.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR
gogui.noarch: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint gogui-javadoc-1.4.6-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
gogui-javadoc.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR
gogui-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint gogui-1.4.6-1.fc19.src.rpm
gogui.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR
gogui.src: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
gogui.src:103: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:104: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:105: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:106: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:107: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:108: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:109: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:112: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
gogui.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
gogui.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
gogui.src: W: no-%clean-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 5 warnings.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/Florencia/866901/gogui-1.4.6-src.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : a7cce6b4e314d0048f5e569e5fd43b73
MD5SUM upstream package : 90da61b841b47a1c655c2a01205d2459
[ ]: 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 a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[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.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provi
[Bug 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901 --- Comment #7 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- Running fedora-review by itself without going through the checklist at the end and check the point that are remaining (and making sure there are no false positive/negative) is pretty much useless. Please don't do that, either do a full review (helped with feora-review) or just report the error but don't just paste the output of fedora-review without checking it. That said, pointing out mistakes is always good to do, we are all subject at making some ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 --- Comment #11 from Gregor Tätzner --- I'm planning to stick to the 4.0.x series for now and update to 4.5 post-review, provided that this review doesn't take forever... btw still in the need of a reviewer for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869020] New: Review Request: python-glue - A simple command line tool to generate CSS sprites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869020 Bug ID: 869020 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-glue - A simple command line tool to generate CSS sprites 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-glue/python-glue.spec SRPM URL: http://lorenzogil.com/rpms/python-glue/python-glue-0.2.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Glue is a simple command line tool to generate CSS sprites using any kind of source images like PNG, JPEG or GIF. Glue will generate a unique PNG file containing every source image and a CSS file including the necessary CSS classes to use the sprite. Fedora Account System Username: lgs Koji build for Fedora 17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4616305 This is my second package and I still need a sponsor. I've been reviewing other package at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864464 and I also created another package review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866130 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869020] Review Request: python-glue - A simple command line tool to generate CSS sprites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869020 Lorenzo Gil Sanchez 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 868713] Review Request: repsnapper - RepRap control software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868713 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at Summary|repsnapper package review |Review Request: repsnapper ||- RepRap control software --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich --- Please use this form for future requests: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=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 868713] Review Request: repsnapper - RepRap control software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868713 --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich --- Drop (most likely) all version requirements, compare http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires License should be stated as GPLv2. Source1 should use the name macro. Maximum allowed linelength is 80 characters. Locales are not handled properly: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files Drop the name from "Summary". Please offer your files in a way, where the URLs are directly accessable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich --- Don't use macros for rm, install, chmod and cp. Remove defattr, if you're not going for EPEL4. Remove the clean section if you're not going for 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 869020] Review Request: python-glue - A simple command line tool to generate CSS sprites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869020 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge --- I'll do a 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 868838] Review Request: nepomukshell - Debugging and maintenance tool for Nepomuk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868838 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich --- Jan: I think using fedora-review only makes sense when you also fill out the resulting form a bit. :) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is no longer necessary. License seems to be GPLv3+: $ licensecheck -r * ... resourcepropertymodel.cpp: GPL resourcepropertymodel.h: GPL (v2 or later) resourcequerywidget.cpp: GPL resourcequerywidget.h: GPL resourceview.cpp: GPL resourceview.h: GPL (v2 or later) settings/resourcebrowsersettingspage.h: GPL sparqlsyntaxhighlighter.cpp: GPL (v3 or later) sparqlsyntaxhighlighter.h: GPL (v3 or later) Mark as %doc: COPYING, AUTHORS, ChangeLog BR cmake I think it should be "and" not "end" in the summary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
