[Bug 866982] Review Request: rubygem-gem-patch - RubyGems plugin for patching gems.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866982 --- Comment #8 from Josef Stribny --- Hi, I uploaded the corresponding SRPM, it wasn't up-to-date. Apologies. 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810676] Review Request: aws - Ada Web Server (Web framework for Ada)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676 Bug 810676 depends on bug 868485, which changed state. Bug 868485 Summary: ZLIB_ERROR raised with AWS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868485 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869618] Review Request: crtools - Checkpoint/Restore in User-space
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869618
--- Comment #2 from Adrian Reber ---
Thanks for the review. I have removed the macros for mkdir and install and
added a comment why it only works on x86_64.
As it is not required to use macros in Source0 I would rather leave it the way
it is.
Spec URL: http://lisas.de/~adrian/rpm/crtools.spec
SRPM URL: http://lisas.de/~adrian/rpm/crtools-0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm
* Tue Aug 21 2012 Adrian Reber - 0.2-2
- remove macros like %%{__mkdir_p} and %%{__install}
- add comment why it is only x86_64
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny --- Hi, it seems only RubyGems 1.8.0 is causing the trouble. After the upgrade to 1.8.24 `LANG=en_US.utf8` is not needed anymore. Updated SPEC & SRPM: SPEC: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-gem-nice-install.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-gem-nice-install-0.1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4624716 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869610] Review Request: glassfish-saaj - JSR-67 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869610 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- hi, i'll take this 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 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666
Mathieu Bridon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boche...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|boche...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon ---
One comment first: what's the point of the ignore.txt file? It looks like
something used by this module:
http://search.cpan.org/~xsawyerx/Module-Starter-1.58/lib/Module/Starter/Simple.pm
If that's what it is, it doesn't seem useful to have it as %doc.
Now on to the actual review...
Summary of issues
=
[!]: 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.
=> There is a LICENSE file, include it as %doc
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Reguires:.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (Queue-DBI-2.4.2.tar.gz)
=> This is
[Bug 845264] Review Request: maven-artifact-resolver - Maven Artifact Resolution API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #6 from Tomas Radej --- Fixed. Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-artifact-resolver/4/maven-artifact-resolver.spec SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-artifact-resolver/4/maven-artifact-resolver-1.0-4.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 --- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman --- (In reply to comment #5) > > If that's what it is, it doesn't seem useful to have it as %doc. True. Removed. > => There is a LICENSE file, include it as %doc Done. Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Queue-DBI/perl-Queue-DBI.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Queue-DBI/perl-Queue-DBI-2.4.2-2.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 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666
Mathieu Bridon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon ---
Only difference between this new package and the previous submission is:
---
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Queue-DBI
Version:2.4.2
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a
storage system
License:GPLv3
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Queue-DBI/
@@ -42,11 +42,14 @@
./Build test
%files
-%doc Changes ignore.txt README
+%doc Changes LICENSE README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Thu Oct 25 2012 Emmanuel Seyman - 2.4.2-2
+- Add LICENSE and remove ignore.txt in doc macro, per review (#855666)
+
* Sun Oct 21 2012 Emmanuel Seyman - 2.4.2-1
- Update to 2.4.2
---
This fixes the only issue I had, so the package is 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 826520] Review Request: hiera - A simple hierarchical database supporting plugin data sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520 --- Comment #22 from Steve Traylen --- I am also still very much on the just call the package 'hiera'. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Emmanuel Seyman --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Queue-DBI Short Description: A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system Owners: eseyman Branches: F18 F17 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 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 --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch --- I have no other comments. The package looks good => APPROVED. Feel free to import it into Fedora once you are sponsored. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845264] Review Request: maven-artifact-resolver - Maven Artifact Resolution API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4624987 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 845264] Review Request: maven-artifact-resolver - Maven Artifact Resolution API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Tomas Radej --- Thanks. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-artifact-resolver Short Description: Maven Artifact Resolution API Owners: tradej Branches: f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866982] Review Request: rubygem-gem-patch - RubyGems plugin for patching gems.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866982 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch --- * pushd paired with popd - This is minor nit and has no influence on anything, but these are pair commands and they should be used in pair IMO (see %check section). BTW Upstream question: What is the purpose of two identical READMEs? Otherwise the package looks good => APPROVED. Since you proven that you understand the guidelines by passing two packages through review and poking around for some informal reviews, I am going to sponsor you as well. Enjoy your new privileges for good of community ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #10 from Vít Ondruch --- You can follow now with: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_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 818458] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug19 - Command line interface (CLI) for ruby-debug-base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818458 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Hi Toby, thanks for your kind words about making Ruby easier to use on Fedora :) Although I have almost no time to spare, I'll take this 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 773485] Review Request: ibutils - InfiniBand fabric management utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773485 --- Comment #16 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 845264] Review Request: maven-artifact-resolver - Maven Artifact Resolution API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901 --- Comment #9 from Christophe Burgun --- I have change the spec file and rebuilt due to : http://jouty.fedorapeople.org/upstream-info changing xgd to install command (see changelogs) here new links : SPEC : http://jouty.fedorapeople.org/gogui.spec SRPM : http://jouty.fedorapeople.org/gogui-1.4.6-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818458] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug19 - Command line interface (CLI) for ruby-debug-base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818458 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- The specfile is clean, the package builds and works fine. The only tiny thing that I was able to find is, that you're missing popd in pair to pushd in %check, but I'm only mentioning that because I don't know what else to say :) Package is 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 730764] Review Request: wxpdfdoc - A library for creating PDF documents in C++ with wxWidgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730764 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4625139 $ rpmlint -i -v * wxpdfdoc.i686: I: checking wxpdfdoc.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc.i686: I: checking-url http://wxcode.sourceforge.net/components/wxpdfdoc/ (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libwxcode_gtk2_pdfdoc-2.8.so wxpdfdoc.src: I: checking wxpdfdoc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc.src: I: checking-url http://wxcode.sourceforge.net/components/wxpdfdoc/ (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc.src: I: checking-url http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/wxpdfdoc/GNUmakefile.patch (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/wxcode/files/Components/wxPdfDocument/wxpdfdoc-0.9.2.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc.x86_64: I: checking wxpdfdoc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://wxcode.sourceforge.net/components/wxpdfdoc/ (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libwxcode_gtk2_pdfdoc-2.8.so wxpdfdoc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking wxpdfdoc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://wxcode.sourceforge.net/components/wxpdfdoc/ (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking wxpdfdoc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://wxcode.sourceforge.net/components/wxpdfdoc/ (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc-devel.i686: I: checking wxpdfdoc-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wxPdfDocument -> documentation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxPdfDocument -> documentation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://wxcode.sourceforge.net/components/wxpdfdoc/ (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. wxpdfdoc-devel.x86_64: I: checking wxpdfdoc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wxPdfDocument -> documentation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxPdfDocument -> documentation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxWidgets -> widgets The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. wxpdfdoc-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://wxcode.sourceforge.net/components/wxpdfdoc/ (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. wxpdfdoc.spec: I: checking-url http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/wxpdfdoc/GNUmakefile.patch (timeout 10 seconds) wxpdfdoc.spec: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/wxcode/files/Components/wxPdfDocument/wxpdfdoc-0.9.2.1.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. No more than some ignorable spelling errors. The "no-docs" warning can also be ignored, because there's documentation available from the main package in any case. The *.so file is in the right place because no versioned library file is present. - key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work - [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match
[Bug 870020] New: Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 Bug ID: 870020 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: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script 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/sil-mingzat-fonts/sil-mingzat-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/sil-mingzat-fonts/sil-mingzat-fonts-0.020-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Mingzat is based on Jason Glavy's JG Lepcha font which was a custom-encoded font. The goal for this product was to provide a single Unicode-based font that would contain all Lepcha characters. In addition, there is provision for other Latin characters and symbols. This font makes use of state-of-the-art font technologies (Graphite and OpenType) to support the need for conjuncts and to position arbitrary combinations of Lepcha glyphs and combining marks optimally. 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 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@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 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj ||ect.org, panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Can you please add page for this font like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overpass_Fonts? Your font page for now should appear in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870029] New: Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029 Bug ID: 870029 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: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: socho...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-dependency-tree.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-dependency-tree-2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Maven dependency tree artifact originally part of maven-shared Fedora Account System Username: sochotni -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870029] Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||850077 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870029] Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej --- Taking the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 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 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Queue-DBI-2.4.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Queue-DBI-2.4.2-2.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 855666] Review Request: perl-Queue-DBI - A queueing module with an emphasis on safety, using DBI as a storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855666 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Queue-DBI-2.4.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Queue-DBI-2.4.2-2.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 870049] New: Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 Bug ID: 870049 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: motif - Run-time libraries and programs Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: twoer...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://twoerner.fedorapeople.org/Motif/motif.spec SRPM URL: http://twoerner.fedorapeople.org/Motif/motif-2.3.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Motif run-time and development environment Fedora Account System Username: twoerner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858381] Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 Clément DAVID changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-25 09:34:11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811661] Review Request: scirenderer - A Java rendering library based on JoGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811661 Bug 811661 depends on bug 858381, which changed state. Bug 858381 Summary: Review Request: jogl2 - Java bindings for the OpenGL API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870029] Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029
Tomas Radej changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/tradej/reviews/870029-maven-dependency-tree/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY pre
[Bug 870050] New: Review Request: mate-file-manager-open-terminal - Mate-file-manager extension for an open terminal shortcut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870050 Bug ID: 870050 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mate-file-manager-open-terminal - Mate-file-manager extension for an open terminal shortcut Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-file-manager-open-terminal/1/mate-file-manager-open-terminal.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-file-manager-open-terminal/1/mate-file-manager-open-terminal-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The mate-file-manager-open-terminal extension provides a right-click "Open Terminal" option for mate-file-manager users who prefer that option. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar --- (In reply to comment #1) > Can you please add page for this font like > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overpass_Fonts? > > Your font page for now should appear in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts Done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847742] Review Request: jmock - Java library for testing code with mock objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847742 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej --- Taking the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870029] Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-dependency-tree Short Description: Maven dependency tree artifact Owners: sochotni Branches: f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov --- Why do we need to enable static libraries? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov --- %defattr(-,root,root) should be removed - it's no longer needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870029] Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029 --- 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 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Woerner --- We have had static libs in the package for RHEL since years, it might be used. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870068] New: Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 Bug ID: 870068 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: Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: phat...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/openlmi-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/openlmi-tools-0.1-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: openlmi-tools is a set of command line tools for Openlmi providers. Fedora Account System Username: phatina This is a re-review request for a package rename. Old package name: cura-tools New package name: openlmi-tools $ rpmlint openlmi-tools-0.1-4.fc17.noarch.rpm openlmi-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-ip.py openlmi-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-service.py openlmi-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-user.py openlmi-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmci-power.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. No man pages present in the upstream project. $ rpmlint openlmi-tools-0.1-4.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata --- Everything seems to be alright. Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to comment #3) > We have had static libs in the package for RHEL since years, it might be > used. A very weak reasoning because there are bugs/issues in RHEL which are not fixed for years. Maybe this is exactly that case. Anyway if you absolutely certain that we need static libs (I'm pretty sure we don't) you must pack them separately. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 Jan Safranek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsafr...@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 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 --- Comment #1 from Jan Safranek --- The rpmlint is fine for me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068
--- Comment #2 from Jan Safranek ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[X]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jsafrane/tmp/quagga/870068-openlmi-
tools/licensecheck.txt
[X]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[X]: 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.
[-]: Package is not relocatable.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Python:
[!]: 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}.
Note: Source0 (openlmi-tools-0.1.tar.gz)
[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 and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note
[Bug 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 --- Comment #3 from Jan Safranek --- So, please fix "[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel" and we are good to go. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sil-mingzat-fonts Short Description: A font for Lepcha script Owners: ppisar Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: fonts-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 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 --- Comment #4 from Peter Hatina --- Added python2-devel. Spec URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/openlmi-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://phatina.fedorapeople.org/rpms/openlmi-tools-0.1-5.fc17.src.rpm Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Woerner --- O.k. new package is in place: - new sub package for static libraries - added /etc/X11/mwm directory - removed defattrs BTW: rpmlint is complaining on tags in man pages (warnings). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845264] Review Request: maven-artifact-resolver - Maven Artifact Resolution API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 845264] Review Request: maven-artifact-resolver - Maven Artifact Resolution API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- maven-artifact-resolver-1.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-artifact-resolver-1.0-4.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 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 Jan Safranek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jan Safranek --- Now it's OK. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 --- Comment #5 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 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 --- Comment #6 from Peter Hatina --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openlmi-tools Short Description: Set of CLI tools for openlmi providers Owners: phatina Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 Peter Hatina changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869280] Review Request: openlmi-networking - CIM provider for network management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869280 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Jan, please take ownership of review BZs. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870029] Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029 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 870029] Review Request: maven-dependency-tree - Maven dependency tree artifact
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870029 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- maven-dependency-tree-2.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-dependency-tree-2.0-1.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 870133] New: Review Request: maven-file-management - Maven Shared File Management API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870133 Bug ID: 870133 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: maven-file-management - Maven Shared File Management API Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: tra...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-file-management/1/maven-file-management.spec SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-file-management/1/maven-file-management-1.2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: API to collect files from a given directory using several include/exclude rules. Fedora Account System Username: tradej -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||sil-mingzat-fonts-0.020-1.f ||c19 --- Comment #6 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 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- sil-mingzat-fonts-0.020-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sil-mingzat-fonts-0.020-1.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 870020] Review Request: sil-mingzat-fonts - A font for Lepcha script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870020 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- sil-mingzat-fonts-0.020-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sil-mingzat-fonts-0.020-1.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 869280] Review Request: openlmi-networking - CIM provider for network management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869280 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc17, openlmi-networking-0.0.5-1.fc17, openlmi-providers-0.0.12-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16769/openlmi-storage-0.4.0-2.fc17,openlmi-providers-0.0.12-1.fc17,openlmi-networking-0.0.5-1.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 869088] Review Request: latte-integrale - Lattice point enumeration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869088 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||shakthim...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shakthim...@gmail.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 756321] Review Request: csmith - Tool to generate random C programs for compiler testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756321
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||loganje...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com
Whiteboard|NotReady|
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Jerry James ---
I will take this review. The duplicate file warning is because %files contains
this:
%{_docdir}/%{name}/probabilities.txt
%{_docdir}/%{name}/compiler_test.in
%{_docdir}/csmith
You probably need only the last of these. Also, COPYING needs to be included
in the documentation.
If you change "%configure" to "%configure --disable-static", that should both
shorten the build time and make this line in %install unnecessary:
find %{buildroot} -name *.a -exec rm -f {} \;
Please see all of the boxes marked [!] below. Ignore the one in the "Perl"
section, though; that is for perl modules, and this package just contains perl
scripts.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/csmith/compiler_test.in
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/csmith/compiler_test.in
[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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jamesjer/756321-csmith/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by
[Bug 870050] Review Request: mate-file-manager-open-terminal - Mate-file-manager extension for an open terminal shortcut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870050 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870050] Review Request: mate-file-manager-open-terminal - Mate-file-manager extension for an open terminal shortcut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870050 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.mas...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870050] Review Request: mate-file-manager-open-terminal - Mate-file-manager extension for an open terminal shortcut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870050 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||869744 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov --- Successful Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4626409 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870050] Review Request: mate-file-manager-open-terminal - Mate-file-manager extension for an open terminal shortcut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870050
--- Comment #1 from Dan Mashal ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: 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.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: 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.
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated".
2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dan/870050-mate-file-manager-open-terminal/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: 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 upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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
[Bug 870181] Review Request: Jokte - Latam CMS, Joomla Fork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870181 Juan Botero 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 870181] New: Review Request: Jokte - Latam CMS, Joomla Fork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870181 Bug ID: 870181 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: Jokte - Latam CMS, Joomla Fork Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: juanpabloboterolo...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://jpill.fedorapeople.org/jokte/jokte.spec SRPM URL: http://jpill.fedorapeople.org/jokte/jokte-cms-1.1-1.src.rpm Description: Jokte is a CMS, created by Latin American Community juuntos.org, is based in Joomla. Jokte! is totally free, its licence is GPL and trademark is Copyleft. Fedora Account System Username: jpill I'm Fedora Ambassador for Colombia, this is my first Package, so, i need an sponsor. Thanks for attention -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863571] Review Request: flare - A single player, 2D-isometric, action Role-Playing Game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863571 --- Comment #8 from Erik Schilling --- Updated SRPM: http://ablu.fedorapeople.org/flare-0.17.1-4.fc17.src.rpm Sorry i did no koji build because uploading this takes ages with my internet. But i did local mock build. Thanks for the suggestions! Erik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is NOT silent (1290 warnings!) but almost all of these warnings are
about undefined macros in man-pages which isn't that harmful. You should take a
look at them and report upstream. The rest of rpmlint messages are listed
below:
Auriga ~: rpmlint Desktop/motif-* | grep -v manual-page-warning
motif.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mwm -> mm, mam, mom
^^^ false positive.
motif.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libUil.so.4.0.4
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
^^^ that's a bad architectural design but it's not a blocker.
motif-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
^^^ It's not required here.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1290 warnings.
Auriga ~:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (LGPL
v2 or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
+ Static libraries are stored in a -static package.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
- The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. Note the
"%{?_isa}" macro.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application (which means that it doesn't add some userspace
graphical utilities which requires *.desktop file).
- The package can not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
I really concerned about
* xorg-x11-xbitmaps who is the owner of the /usr/include/X11/bitmaps/ directory
* xorg-x11-xinit, owner of the /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/
*If* these packages are picked up automatically by a dependency checker then
it's ok. If not - you must add them as a Requires.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Almost done.
* Please, fix devel sub-package dependency (requires %{?_isa} macro).
* Ensure that xorg-x11-xbitmaps and xorg-x11-xinit are picked up automatically
and inserted into dependency chain while installing Motif rpm. Otherwise please
add them explicitly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870184] Review Request: drumkv1 - an old-school digital drumkit sampler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||805236 (FedoraAudio) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870184] New: Review Request: drumkv1 - an old-school digital drumkit sampler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184 Bug ID: 870184 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: drumkv1 - an old-school digital drumkit sampler Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: brendan.jones...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora drumkv1 is an old-school all-digital drum-kit sampler synthesizer with stereo fx. It comes in standalone or LV2 flavours SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/drumkv1.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/drumkv1-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm drumkv1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix drumkv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix drumkv1.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary drumkv1_jack lv2-drumkv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synth -> synthesis lv2-drumkv1.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870189] New: Review Request: ibacm - InfiniBand Communication Manager Assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189 Bug ID: 870189 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: ibacm - InfiniBand Communication Manager Assistant Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: jstan...@rmrf.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org//ibacm.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org//ibacm-1.0.7-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The ib_acm daemon helps reduce the load of managing path record lookups on large InfiniBand fabrics by providing a user space implementation of what is functionally similar to an ARP cache. The use of ib_acm, when properly configured, can reduce the SA packet load of a large IB cluster from O(n^2) to O(n). The ib_acm daemon is started and normally runs in the background, user applications need not know about this daemon as long as their app uses librdmacm to handle connection bring up/tear down. The librdmacm library knows how to talk directly to the ib_acm daemon to retrieve data. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870189] Review Request: ibacm - InfiniBand Communication Manager Assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189 --- Comment #1 from Jon Stanley --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4626564 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870197] New: Review Request: mate-file-archiver - MATE Desktop file archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870197 Bug ID: 870197 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mate-file-archiver - MATE Desktop file archiver Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-file-archiver/1/mate-file-archiver.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-file-archiver/1/mate-file-archiver-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Mate File Archiver is an application for creating and viewing archives files, such as tar or zip files. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870197] Review Request: mate-file-archiver - MATE Desktop file archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870197 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.mas...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870202] New: Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 Bug ID: 870202 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: aqualung - Advanced music player Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: trp...@katamail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung-0.9-0.1.beta11.fc17.src.rpm Description: Aqualung is an advanced music player primarily targeted at the GNU/Linux operating system, but also usable on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Cygwin and also runs on Microsoft Windows. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870202] Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 Antonio Trande 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 870202] Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 Peter Hatina changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsafr...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870197] Review Request: mate-file-archiver - MATE Desktop file archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870197 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870202] Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity --- This package requires lame, which is not in official Fedora repositories for legal reasons: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/MP3 As a result, your package is not eligible for Fedora. Maybe your package should take place in some third-party repository: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_party_repositories -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870215] New: Review Request: motif - The Open Motif runtime libraries and executables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870215
Bug ID: 870215
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: motif - The Open Motif runtime
libraries and executables
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: joc...@herr-schmitt.de
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/motif/motif.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/motif/motif-2.3.4-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description:
This is the Open Motif %{version} runtime environment. It includes the
Motif shared libraries, needed to run applications which are dynamically
linked against Motif, and the Motif Window Manager "mwm".
Fedora Account System Username: s4504kr
Note: This package exist in rpmfusion-nonfree as openmotif, but due a license
change we should be able to include this package in the Fedora repository. The
Lesstif package may get obsolte. The reason for the existance of LessTif was
the fact, that motif was non-free in the past.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870202] Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to comment #1) > This package requires lame, which is not in official Fedora repositories for > legal reasons: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/MP3 > As a result, your package is not eligible for Fedora. > Maybe your package should take place in some third-party repository: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_party_repositories Hi Mohamed Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870202] Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 --- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > This package requires lame, which is not in official Fedora repositories for > > legal reasons: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/MP3 > > As a result, your package is not eligible for Fedora. > > Maybe your package should take place in some third-party repository: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_party_repositories > > Hi Mohamed > Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung-0.9-0.1.beta11.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 870202] Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 --- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity --- (In reply to comment #2) > Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support. Since aqualung is a monolithic application (there's no modules or such for media support), it maybe very very difficult for third-party repositories to provide the missing bits to extend Aqualung support to nonfree formats. I *strongly* advice you to submit aqualung to some third-party repository. Users will thank 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 870202] Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870202 --- Comment #5 from Mohamed El Morabity --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support. > Since aqualung is a monolithic application (there's no modules or such for > media support), it maybe very very difficult for third-party repositories to > provide the missing bits to extend Aqualung support to nonfree formats. > I *strongly* advice you to submit aqualung to some third-party repository. > Users will thank you :). You can have a look at this review for VLC, given up for similar reasons: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583236 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870068] Re-Review Request: openlmi-tools - Set of CLI tools for Openlmi providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870068 Peter Hatina changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-25 16:28:54 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870215] Review Request: motif - The Open Motif runtime libraries and executables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870215 Germán Racca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gra...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Germán Racca --- Please see BZ 870049. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
