[Bug 859504] Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- * Sat Oct 27 2012 Remi Collet r...@fedoraproject.org - 2.0.1-4 - drop php prefix from sub packages - clean EL-5 stuff https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/d55126ec61ab2c558bc1193bf305e3e4174961fc Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php/php-xcache/php-xcache.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-xcache-2.0.1-4.remi.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 859504] Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- EPEL-6 Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4630662 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798738] Review request: mysqlenum - is an automatic blind SQL injection tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798738 --- Comment #29 from pjp pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in --- (In reply to comment #28) any progress here? Nope, no reply from upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870323] Review Request: glogg - Smart interactive log explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870323
--- Comment #2 from Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Volker,
Thank you for taking the review.
glogg-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/glogg-0.8.3/.moc
glogg-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/glogg-0.8.3/.moc
Please delete!
If those are included it means that the /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/glogg.debug has
references to those files and they are necessary to debug this application.
The only thing I could do is to try to change the .moc - moc by using:
sed -i 's#\(^release:MOC_DIR.*\)\(\.moc\)\(.*\)#\1moc\3#g' %{name}.pro
But I'm not sure if it's really necessary as it seems to be the common case:
$ yum --enablerepo=\*-debuginfo provides '*/.moc/*' | wc -l
10645
BTW do we have any clear policy how to tackle it or it's only yet another
rpmlint false positive?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870615] New: Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 Bug ID: 870615 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: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: and...@topdog.za.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec SRPM URL: http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.1.beta2.fc17.src.rpm Description: SNMPTT (SNMP Trap Translator) is an SNMP trap handler written in Perl for use with the Net-SNMP / UCD-SNMP snmptrapd program. It can be used to translate trap output from snmptrapd to more descriptive and human friendly form, supports logging, invoking external programs, and has the ability to accept or reject traps based on a number of parameters. Fedora Account System Username:topdog -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gie...@snickers.org --- Comment #1 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net --- *** Bug 509965 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869861] Review Request: pam_openshift - Openshift PAM module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869861 --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Hi, sorry for being late, I was a little too sick for doing it right now. I have a few question : - some files are under a BSD license, shouldn't it be reflected somewhere ? - why pam-libra and pam-openshift provides/obsoletes ? ( I guess that's for internal reason of openshift, but once the transitition happened, this can be removed, I think ) - man page title is incorrect ( still use pam_libra ), I would suggest to regenerate it from the .xml, instead of using the copy shipped by upstream ( and ask to upstream to drop it, or at least, to place the needed code in the Makefile ) - I think there is some missing requires for shell scripts like attr and policycoreutils. They are likely installed by default, but as they are marked as optional, I would add them explicitly ( following the whole discussion on fedora minimal installation on -devel ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870432] Review Request: python-django-openid-auth - OpenID integration for django.contrib.auth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870432
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Hi,
I think the url should be https://launchpad.net/django-openid-auth , since
that's the current upstream.
And could you see if you could add the test in %check ?
Otherwise, the package is good and approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/870432-python-django-openid-
auth/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.
[-]: 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 is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= 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
[Bug 870631] New: Review Request: libnatspec - Library for national and language-specific issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870631 Bug ID: 870631 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: libnatspec - Library for national and language-specific issues Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: dr...@land.ru Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/drizt/libnatspec-package/e85825a056431187d305e1a4df8a3b95003b544a/libnatspec.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/drizt/libnatspec-package/e85825a056431187d305e1a4df8a3b95003b544a/libnatspec-0.2.6-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: Library for national and language-specific issues. This library provides userful functions for mount, submount, mkisofs, multimedia players. This library try to help resolve charset hell (encoding problem) in a various programs depends on locale and messages. See detailed description at http://sourceforge.net/projects/natspec. Fedora Account System Username: ivanromanov -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868936] Review Request: python-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Your files are 404, even the url http://maci.satgnu.net. Please have a look at the links. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Same problem as for bug #868936: dead links. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MID sequencer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Alias||harmonyseq Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build fails for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4630873 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZgDNV1: line 38: desktop-file-install: command not found The package desktop-file-utils is missing from BR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #1) Try to correct the wrong FSF postal addresses in FL/New_Project_Dialog.H and .C. Please don't touch such legal stuff. All you have to do is to inform the upstream folks about the wrong address so that they can fix it in future releases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823724] Review Request: github-cli - command-line interface for GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823724 --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- python-setuptools is still missing from BR. A Mock or Koji build will fail again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863145] Review Request: listadmin - Command line interface to mailman mailing lists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863145 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Ping...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870631] Review Request: libnatspec - Library for national and language-specific issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870631 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4630926 $ rpmlint -i -v * libnatspec.src: I: checking libnatspec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userful - useful, masterful The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submount - surmount, sub mount, sub-mount The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkisofs - kissoffs The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset - char set, char-set, catharses The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/natspec (timeout 10 seconds) libnatspec.src: I: checking-url https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/natspec/natspec/0.2.6/libnatspec-0.2.6.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) libnatspec.i686: I: checking libnatspec.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userful - useful, masterful The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submount - surmount, sub mount, sub-mount The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkisofs - kissoffs The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset - char set, char-set, catharses The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.i686: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/natspec (timeout 10 seconds) libnatspec.x86_64: I: checking libnatspec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userful - useful, masterful The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submount - surmount, sub mount, sub-mount The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkisofs - kissoffs The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset - char set, char-set, catharses The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libnatspec.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/natspec (timeout 10 seconds) libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: I: checking libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/natspec (timeout 10 seconds) libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libnatspec-0.2.6/lib/filesystem.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libnatspec-0.2.6/lib/convert.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libnatspec-0.2.6/lib/enrich_fs_options.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libnatspec-0.2.6/src/natspec.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libnatspec-0.2.6/lib/natspec_internal.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. libnatspec-debuginfo.i686: E:
[Bug 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Well, we must not change the license file, but correcting the postal address in headers should be fine, from my point of view. It's not a must anyway. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- I'd like to see that in EPEL as well. I'd take ownership there, if you're not interested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net --- I will create EPEL branches are you able to pick up 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 870649] New: Review Request: argtable - Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870649 Bug ID: 870649 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: argtable - Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: pwout...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/argtable/argtable.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/argtable/argtable-2.13-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Argtable is an ANSI C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments. It enables a program's command line syntax to be defined in the source code as an array of argtable structs. The command line is then parsed according to that specification and the resulting values are returned in those same structs where they are accessible to the main program. Both tagged (-v, --verbose, --foo=bar) and untagged arguments are supported, as are multiple instances of each argument. Syntax error handling is automatic. Fedora Account System Username: pwouters -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at 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 870631] Review Request: libnatspec - Library for national and language-specific issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870631
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
First I was a bit mislead of some source file headers: The file
/libnatspec-0.2.6/lib/unicode/7bitrepl.lnx is taken from the Lynx source code,
but it doesn't land neither in the Lynx nor in the libnatspec package. That's
why no case of a bundled system file here.
Moreover, some file headers say that some code snippets are taken from the WINE
project, but WINE is LGPL licensed anyway.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
LGPLv2
[.] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
c3831f7373501ed7b23ffb03d9a78650dee93dbf997a61767b7dea009d4a757f
libnatspec-0.2.6.tar.bz2
c3831f7373501ed7b23ffb03d9a78650dee93dbf997a61767b7dea009d4a757f
libnatspec-0.2.6.tar.bz2.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #28 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- I just tried it again on my F18 system and knot answers queries without requiring --enable-recvmmsg=no. An EL6 package should still be tested separately though. If you know which kernel fixes this, please put in a Requires: with that version. Can you add support for using /etc/sysconfig/knot, like most daemons? And fix the pifdile typo in knot.conf With those changes, it should pass review quickly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870631] Review Request: libnatspec - Library for national and language-specific issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870631 --- Comment #3 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- 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 870631] Review Request: libnatspec - Library for national and language-specific issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870631 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libnatspec Short Description: Library for national and language-specific issues Owners: ivanromanov 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 870649] Review Request: argtable - Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870649 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Is this package intended to go in el5? If yes, add a BuildRoot definition and the initial cleaning of %buildroot in %build. If not, remove the %clean section, the %defattr line in %files (which is even not needed for el5). In general you have to remove the el5 stuff for all non-el5 branches anyway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868936] Review Request: python-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 --- Comment #3 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- woops, fixed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 --- Comment #3 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- fixed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Please report the wrong FSF postal address upstream, if you haven't already. defattr is no longer necessary from EPEL 5 on. Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript for Requires of /sbin/service for the scriptlets (You can remove the trailing slash on URL.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 --- Comment #29 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- And upgrade to 1.1.0. If you want to check, i have put in the fixes at ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/knot/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 --- Comment #30 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- perhaps make /etc/knot group knot as well, as reading is restricted. I prefer the directory itself to be readable, and the files therein to be readonly if they contain tsigs, but that's just a personal preference. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870649] Review Request: argtable - Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870649 --- Comment #2 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Fixed Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/argtable/argtable.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/argtable/argtable-2.13-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868936] Review Request: python-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4631425 $ rpmlint -i -v *python-apsw.src: I: checking python-apsw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysqlite - pyrites The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-apsw.src: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng License The value of the License tag was not recognized. Known values are: AAL, Abstyles, Adobe, ADSL, AFL, AGPLv1, AGPLv3, AGPLv3 with exceptions, AMDPLPA, AML, AMPAS BSD, APSL 2.0, APSL 2.0+, ARL, Artistic 2.0, Artistic clarified, ASL 1.0, ASL 1.0+, ASL 1.1, ASL 1.1+, ASL 2.0, ASL 2.0+, Bahyph, Barr, Beerware, BeOpen, Bibtex, BitTorrent, Boost, Borceux, BSD, BSD Protection, BSD with advertising, BSD with attribution, CATOSL, CC0, CeCILL, CeCILL-B, CeCILL-C, CDDL, CNRI, Condor, Copyright only, CPAL, CPL, Crossword, Crystal Stacker, diffmark, DOC, Dotseqn, DSDP, dvipdfm, ECL 1.0, ECL 2.0, eCos, EFL 2.0, EFL 2.0+, eGenix, Entessa, EPL, ERPL, EU Datagrid, EUPL 1.1, Eurosym, Fair, FTL, Giftware, GL2PS, Glide, Glulxe, gnuplot, GPL+, GPL+ or Artistic, GPL+ with exceptions, GPLv1, GPLv2 or Artistic, GPLv2+ or Artistic, GPLv2, GPLv2 with exceptions, GPLv2+, GPLv2+ with exceptions, GPLv3, GPLv3 with exceptions, GPLv3+, GPLv3+ with exceptions, HaskellReport, IBM, IJG, ImageMagick, iMatix, Imlib2, Intel ACPI, Interbase, ISC, Jabber, JasPer, JPython, Julius, Knuth, Latex2e, LBNL BSD, Leptonica, LGPLv2, LGPLv2 with exceptions, LGPLv2+, LGPLv2+ or Artistic, LGPLv2+ with exceptions, LGPLv3, LGPLv3 with exceptions, LGPLv3+, LGPLv3+ with exceptions, Lhcyr, libtiff, LLGPL, Logica, LPL, LPPL, MakeIndex, mecab-ipadic, midnight, MirOS, MIT, MIT with advertising, mod_macro, Motosoto, MPLv1.0, MPLv1.0+, MPLv1.1, MPLv1.1+, MPLv2.0, MS-PL, MS-RL, Naumen, NCSA, NetCDF, Netscape, Newmat, Newsletr, NGPL, NLPL, Nokia, NOSL, Noweb, OML, OpenLDAP, OpenPBS, OpenSSL, OReilly, OSL 1.0, OSL 1.0+, OSL 1.1, OSL 1.1+, OSL 2.0, OSL 2.0+, OSL 2.1, OSL 2.1+, OSL 3.0, OSL 3.0+, Par, Phorum, PHP, PlainTeX, Plexus, PostgreSQL, psfrag, psutils, Public Domain, Python, Qhull, QPL, Rdisc, RiceBSD, Romio, RPSL, Rsfs, Ruby, Saxpath, SCEA, SCRIP, Sendmail, Sleepycat, SISSL, SLIB, SNIA, SPL, TCL, Teeworlds, Threeparttable, TMate, TORQUEv1.1, TOSL, TPL, UCD, Vim, VNLSL, VOSTROM, VSL, W3C, Webmin, Wsuipa, WTFPL, wxWidgets, Xerox, xinetd, xpp, XSkat, YPLv1.1, Zed, Zend, zlib, zlib with acknowledgement, ZPLv1.0, ZPLv1.0+, ZPLv2.0, ZPLv2.0+, ZPLv2.1, ZPLv2.1+, CDL, FBSDDL, GFDL, IEEE, LDPL, OFSFDL, Open Publication, Public Use, CC-BY, CC-BY-ND, CC-BY-SA, DMTF, DSL, EFML, Free Art, GeoGratis, Green OpenMusic, OAL, AMS, Arphic, Baekmuk, Bitstream Vera, DoubleStroke, Hershey, IPA, Liberation, Lucida, MgOpen, mplus, OFL, PTFL, STIX, Utopia, Wadalab, XANO, Redistributable, no modification permitted, Freely redistributable without restriction. python-apsw.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/apsw/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw.src: I: checking-url http://apsw.googlecode.com/files/apsw-3.7.11-r1.zip (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://apsw.googlecode.com/files/apsw-3.7.11-r1.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. python-apsw.i686: I: checking python-apsw.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysqlite - pyrites The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-apsw.i686: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng License The value of the License tag was not recognized. Known values are: AAL, Abstyles, Adobe, ADSL, AFL, AGPLv1, AGPLv3, AGPLv3 with exceptions, AMDPLPA, AML, AMPAS BSD, APSL 2.0, APSL 2.0+, ARL, Artistic 2.0, Artistic clarified, ASL 1.0, ASL 1.0+, ASL 1.1, ASL 1.1+, ASL 2.0, ASL 2.0+, Bahyph, Barr, Beerware, BeOpen, Bibtex, BitTorrent, Boost, Borceux, BSD, BSD Protection, BSD with advertising, BSD with attribution, CATOSL, CC0, CeCILL, CeCILL-B, CeCILL-C, CDDL, CNRI, Condor, Copyright only, CPAL, CPL, Crossword, Crystal Stacker, diffmark, DOC, Dotseqn, DSDP, dvipdfm, ECL 1.0, ECL 2.0, eCos, EFL 2.0, EFL 2.0+, eGenix, Entessa, EPL, ERPL, EU Datagrid, EUPL 1.1, Eurosym, Fair, FTL, Giftware, GL2PS, Glide, Glulxe, gnuplot, GPL+, GPL+ or Artistic, GPL+ with exceptions, GPLv1, GPLv2 or Artistic, GPLv2+ or Artistic, GPLv2, GPLv2 with exceptions, GPLv2+, GPLv2+ with exceptions, GPLv3, GPLv3 with exceptions, GPLv3+, GPLv3+ with exceptions, HaskellReport, IBM, IJG,
[Bug 870649] Review Request: argtable - Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870649 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Taking this for a full 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 870649] Review Request: argtable - Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870649 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4632102 $ rpmlint -i -v * argtable.src: I: checking argtable.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US structs - struts, obstructs, destructs The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. argtable.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untagged - tagged The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. argtable.src: I: checking-url http://argtable.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) argtable.src: I: checking-url http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/argtable/argtable2-13.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) argtable.i686: I: checking argtable.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US structs - struts, obstructs, destructs The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. argtable.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untagged - tagged The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. argtable.i686: I: checking-url http://argtable.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) argtable.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/Makefile The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/uname.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/argxxx.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/rm.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/argxxx.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/echo.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.x86_64: I: checking argtable.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US structs - struts, obstructs, destructs The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. argtable.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untagged - tagged The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. argtable.x86_64: I: checking-url http://argtable.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) argtable.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/Makefile The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/uname.c The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/argtable-2.13/example/argxxx.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. argtable.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
[Bug 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- The problem is, there's an open review request for opencsg (bug #825489) which is needed for openscad. But for opencsg, the requester has obviously no time to maintain this package in Fedora officially, and he needs a sponsor anyway. Miro, would you maintain both packages? If yes, then I could imagine to help out with a sponsorship. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bioinfornat...@gmail.com, ||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Component|Package Review |0ad Assignee|bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||needinfo?(pa...@zhukoff.net ||) --- Comment #32 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- (In reply to comment #29) · The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. → ISSUE: As far as I can see the license should be GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ on the main package, and GPLv3+ on aws-tools. (Memory_Streams is GPLv2+.) Fixed Version three on the tools, not two. → NOTE: A copy of COPYING3 must be included in aws-doc if its dependency on aws-devel is removed. COPYING3 is bringing with main package all subpackages are depends from main. Do I have to inclide COPYING3 in aws-doc as well? I don't see why the -doc subpackage would depend on the main package. The shared library file is required by programs that are linked to AWS. Users can read the documents just fine without having the library installed. Did you add this dependency only to avoid including a copy of COPYING3 in aws-doc? The way I read the guidelines, subpackages aren't supposed to pull in other packages only for the license file. Subpackages that depend on a base package for other reasons don't need to include license files, but the way to add a license file to an independent subpackage is to include a copy of the file rather than adding an otherwise unnecesssary dependency. Relevant sections: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing → ISSUE: Zlib-Ada is now packaged so include/zlib* must be deleted. -lz should be deleted from build_aws.gpr, and «with zlib_ada;» added to build_aws.gpr and aws.gpr. The build dependencies and the dependencies of aws-devel must reflect this. Fixed aws-devel also needs to require zlib-ada-devel, and build_aws.gpr still contains -lz in two places. If you still can't get the package to build without -lz, then I need more information about what errors you get and how to reproduce the problem. · The package must have BuildRequires: gcc-gnat. → ISSUE: gcc-gnat is missing from the build dependencies. Main and -devel packages depend from fedora-gnat-projects-common which depend from gcc-gnat. package: fedora-gnat-project-common.noarch 3.5-1.fc17 dependency: gcc-gnat provider: gcc-gnat.x86_64 4.7.2-2.fc17 As I told you in the review of Matreshka, fedora-gnat-project-common does not abstract away Gnat. A package that requires Gnat to build shall say so in the spec file. As I wrote on the Ada mailing list, I'm considering removing fedora-gnat-projects-common's dependency on gcc-gnat. I'll check debian package but I wouldn't like to bring man pages from anywhere and patch it. It's hard to follow any changes in man pages or something else. That's why the policy says that you should try to get the man pages included upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870649] Review Request: argtable - Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870649 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Thanks Mario! I've already sent upstream a note about the FSF address. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: argtable Short Description: Cross platform C library for parsing GNU style command line arguments Owners: pwouters Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810676] Review Request: aws - Ada Web Server (Web framework for Ada)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added Component|0ad |Package Review Assignee|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr |bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se |a...@gmail.com | --- Comment #33 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- Something weird happened to the metadata on this review request. I'm trying to clean it up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added CC|bioinfornat...@gmail.com, | |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr | |a...@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 868936] Review Request: python-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 --- Comment #5 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- fixed the issues Update: Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-apsw.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-apsw-3.7.11.r1-4.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 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187 --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- Yes I would. I've originally made also a openscg spec file, but I've dropped it, it was very similar to #825489. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821917] Review Request: mu - maildir utility with Emacs support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821917
--- Comment #8 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the updated version. Here is my (informal) review:
rpmbuild runs fine, creates 4 new rpms and one srpm.
Also mock creates the same rpms and srpm.
rpmlint output on my side is as follows
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mu-0.9.9-2.fc17.src.rpm
mu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US maildirs - airmails
mu.src:51: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
mu.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://mu0.googlecode.com/files/mu-0.9.9.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
The new warning about configure seems not relevant to me, since line 51 of the
spec file checks for the existence of the configure script, and does not
launch it.
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mu-0.9.9-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
mu.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US maildirs - airmails
mu.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs - Emacs, macs, maces
mu.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mu-find.1.gz 54: cannot
use newline as a starting delimiter
mu.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mu-find.1.gz 429:
warning: macro `T' not defined
mu.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mu-remove.1.gz 5: cannot
use a space as a starting delimiter
mu.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mu-index.1.gz 137:
warning: macro `si' not defined
mu.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mu-cfind.1.gz 103:
warning: macro `sh' not defined
mu.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mu-cfind.1.gz 105:
warning: macro `si' not defined
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
since you agree to send the man page warnings upstream,
this is fine for the moment
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/emacs-mu4e-0.9.9-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/emacs-mu4e-el-0.9.9-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
emacs-mu4e-el.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp - lisp, e
lisp, Ellis
emacs-mu4e-el.noarch: W: no-documentation
emacs-mu4e-el.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/mu4e/mu4e-speedbar.el
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
since you agree to send the fsf address error upstream
this is fine for the moment
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mu-debuginfo-0.9.9-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
MUST items as mentioned in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
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.[1]
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[+]
[Bug 865937] Review Request: libotr3 - OTR version 3 compat library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865937 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865937] Review Request: libotr3 - OTR version 3 compat library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865937 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libotr3-3.2.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870049] Review Request: motif - Run-time libraries and programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 Gilles J. Seguin se...@videotron.ca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||se...@videotron.ca --- Comment #14 from Gilles J. Seguin se...@videotron.ca --- (In reply to comment #13) So what will you do with lesstif, will this package Obsolete it? Or is the plan to keep it as a compatibility package for the old OpenMotif 2.1 ABI (libXm.so.2)? IIRC lesstif is targeting compatibility with motif 1.2 which should be libXm.so.2 motif 2.1 is libXm.so.4 saying that the motif package provide openmotif, how the path to /usr/lib64/openmotif/libXm.so.4 should be interpreted ? ldconfig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
