[Bug 870496] Review Request: binwalk - Firmware analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870496 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB) Alias||binwalk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Alias||snmptt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||echevemas...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi, again Brendan SRPM and SPEC are innaccesible (error 404) , however I've found these in bsjones.fedorapeople.org, please fix the links There is some issues here no-soname /usr/lib64/libalsapid.so https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-soname Since it is located in a standard lib location such as /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 then it probably is a blocker review, Please contact with upstream for resolve this and give a correct soname to library Don't use the scriptlet update-desktop-database -q since there is no mimetype included in the package A question, this program can be build correctly with the waf version of Fedora, and not with bundled waf? If the answer is positive, Please build with the waf version of Fedora Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870719] New: Review Request: horst - A highly optimized radio scanning tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870719 Bug ID: 870719 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: horst - A highly optimized radio scanning tool Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/horst.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/horst-3.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Project URL: http://br1.einfach.org/tech/horst/ Description: horst is a scanning and analysis tool for IEEE802.11 wireless ad-hoc (IBSS) networks and the OLSR mesh routing protocol. it can be used discover the best OLSR nodes in the neighbourhood, to optimize antenna positions and to discover problems in the mesh network. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4632918 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop11 SRPMS]$ rpmlint horst-3.0-1.fc17.src.rpm horst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hoc - ho, choc, hock horst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neighbourhood - neighborhood, neighborliness 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [fab@laptop11 x86_64]$ rpmlint horst-* horst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hoc - ho, choc, hock horst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neighbourhood - neighborhood, neighborliness horst.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary horst 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870719] Review Request: horst - A highly optimized radio scanning tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870719 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB) Alias||horst -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net --- Hi Volker, The FSF address has already been reported upstream. If i remove defattr, i get rpmlint errors see below [andrew@build2 ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:120: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:121: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:122: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:123: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:124: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:125: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:126: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:127: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:128: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:130: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:131: E: files-attr-not-set rpmbuild/SPECS/snmptt.spec:132: E: files-attr-not-set 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 0 warnings. [andrew@build2 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.3 (Final) I have added the dependencies for /sbin/service as per the packaging guidelines. Please find the updated spec and srpm at http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.2.beta2.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 869610] Review Request: glassfish-saaj - JSR-67 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869610
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
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
[-]: 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.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/869610-glassfish-saaj/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
Java:
[x]: If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]:
[Bug 870725] New: Review Request: sucrack - A su cracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870725 Bug ID: 870725 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: sucrack - A su cracker Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/sucrack.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/sucrack-1.2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm Project URL: http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack.shtml Description: sucrack is a multithreaded Linux/UNIX tool for brute-force cracking local user accounts via su. This tool comes in handy as final instance on a system where you have not to many privileges but you are in the wheel group. Many su implementations require a pseudo terminal to be attached in order to take the password from the user. This is why you couldn't just use a simple shell script to do this work. This tool, written in c, is highly efficient and can attempt multiple logins at the same time. Please be advised that using this tool will take a lot of the CPU performance and fill up the logs quite quickly. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4632944 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop11 SRPMS]$ rpmlint sucrack-1.2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm sucrack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) su - sew, us, s sucrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded - multicolored sucrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US su - sew, us, s sucrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins - losing, loins, lo gins 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [fab@laptop11 x86_64]$ rpmlint sucrack-* sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) su - sew, us, s sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded - multicolored sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US su - sew, us, s sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins - losing, loins, lo gins 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870725] Review Request: sucrack - A su cracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870725 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB) Alias||sucrack -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #6 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Please add Requires(pre): shadow-utils as of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups?rd=Packaging/UsersAndGroups rm the bin directory, as of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_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 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615 --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Also, try to submit the unit file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #8 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net ---
* Also, try to submit the unit file:
A unit file is already included.
Source1: %{name}.service
[andrew@build2 ~]$ rpm -qlp rpmbuild/SRPMS/snmptt-1.4-0.2.beta2.el6.src.rpm
snmptt.service
snmptt.spec
snmptt_1.4beta2.tgz
* The bin directory:
Perl files are not considered binaries,
[andrew@build2 ~]$ file snmptt_1.4beta2/snmpttconvert
snmptt_1.4beta2/snmpttconvert: a /usr/bin/perl script text executable
[andrew@build2 ~]$ file snmptt_1.4beta2/snmptt
snmptt_1.4beta2/snmptt: a /usr/bin/perl script text executable
* Please add Requires(pre): shadow-utils:
Done, updated spec file and srpm
http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec
http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.3.beta2.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 Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pa...@zhukoff.net | |) | --- Comment #34 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net --- new build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4633190 - Remove -lz flag - Remove dependencies -doc from base package - Fix tools license - Add man pages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868325] Review Request: expatpp - A tiny OO C++ wrapper around expat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868325
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Few notes:
* Please specify a svn revision explicitly (instead of exporting HEAD)
* Relese should be from 1.20121019gitd8c1bf8%{?dist}
Otherwise looks good.
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/expatpp-*
../SRPMS/expatpp-0.6-20121019gitd8c1bf8.fc19.src.rpm
expatpp.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas - schema,
sachems, schemes
^^^ false positive
expatpp-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation
^^^ sad but true.
expatpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas - schema,
sachems, schemes
^^^ false positive
expatpp.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 2)
^^^ cosmetic. Please fix in the mean time.
expatpp.src: W: file-size-mismatch expatpp.tar.bz2 = 10814,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/expatpp/files/expatpp.tar.bz2 = 22116
^^^ since we don't use the tarball from SF in favor of autogenerated one then
just shorted Source1 to expatpp.tar.bz2
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ 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
(Mozilla Public License 1.1, as stated at the SF's page).
0 No licensing info provided in tarball.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ 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.
0 No static libraries.
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 requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Ok, please address the issues noted above and I'll finish 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 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||northlo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|northlo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com --- The only issue I can see is that there is no mention about contact upstream about the incorrect fsf-address. And while you are at it, you can also mention the following bug to them: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/applications/non-daw.desktop: warning: value Application;AudioVideo;Audio;X-Jack; for key Categories in group Desktop Entry contains a deprecated value Application Once you have fixed that little issue, I'll be ready to approve it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||northlo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|northlo...@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 860001] Review Request: erlang-snappy - An Erlang NIF wrapper for Google's snappy library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860001 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-28 08:53:25 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|northlo...@gmail.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com --- The fedora-review script is failing me a little on this one, so i'm going through the steps manually. $ rpmlint caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm caledonia-kde-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logout - lo gout, lo-gout, log out 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm caledonia-kde-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logout - lo gout, lo-gout, log out 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint caledonia-kde-theme.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. No problems there great to see in the .spec where the licence can be found. The licence checks out (from the README FILE): [...] Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. It builds cleanly, no issues found in the build log, and it installs locally without any issues. No issues found in the mock build log either Great package! * PACKAGE 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 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|northlo...@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 849026] Review Request: jam-control - audioserver gui app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849026 --- Comment #22 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/jam-control.spec SRPM URL: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/jam-control-1.03-1.fc17.src.rpm Fixed the above issues and uploaded the updated stuff. I guess third release is a charm ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #9 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- You got me wrong there: When I said submit I meant to submit it upstream, as suggested in the part of the guidelines I cited. The tarball has a bin subdirectory including a Windows dll. Delete that in the prep section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821233] Review Request: vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821233
--- Comment #10 from Sourav Basu sourav.t...@yahoo.com ---
Here is the full review with all the manual checks done. If I made any mistake
please let me know.
However, this is an *informal* Review. I am not registered with the packagers
group, so just wait for a reviewer to approve it.
--
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = OK
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not Applicable
Issues:
===
[!]: Package does not install properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
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.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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.
[x]: 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), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tumu/Fedora-
Project/Review/vdr-live/i686/review-vdr-live/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment).
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
Note: Package does not
[Bug 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #10 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
install -D -p -m 0755 snmptthandler %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/snmpttconvert
install -D -p -m 0755 snmptthandler %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/snmpttconvertmib
The source filenames are wrong here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 --- Comment #14 from Ondrej Kozina okoz...@redhat.com --- Hi, I believe it's related to: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46147 Fedora 17 runs dbus-1.4.10 and it's not patched until 1.4.20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811330] Review Request: pcsc-cyberjack - driver for ReinerSCT cyberJack chipcart readers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330 --- Comment #12 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer p...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #11) (In reply to comment #9) [...] after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next release The dictionary that rpmlint uses obviously just doesn't know the technical term. Ah, I meant 'I looked in the dictionary at leo.org and found non-contact better'. Merriam-Webster also agrees that contactless does not exist. I presume 'contactless' is a straight translation of the German 'kontaktlos'. [...] a) the file isn't really meant to be modified by the user, and as such shouldn't be marked %config(noreplace); b) it should be installed in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ instead so that it's clear that it's a system file shipped by a package and not a config file that can be modified. [...] Agreed and moved in -10 spec file at http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack.spec and mock build results in http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-9/fedora-17-x86_64/ and http://www.pcfe.net/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03/pcsc-cyberjack-3.99.5final.SP03-9/fedora-18-x86_64/ Still unlear to me: pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash has no docs; should I maybe add a README.Fedora to the cjflash sub-package that points to the main package's README? PCFE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: caledonia-kde-theme Short Description: Desktop theme for plasma Owners: bsjones Branches:f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- I'll review it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-file-manager-open-terminal-1.4.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16895/mate-file-manager-open-terminal-1.4.0-1.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 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 #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-file-manager-open-terminal-1.4.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-17010/mate-file-manager-open-terminal-1.4.0-1.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 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Fails to build for F18 and Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4633623 * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4633636 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for taking this on - Apologies for the missing BR SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtaudio-4.0.11-2.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtaudio.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849026] Review Request: jam-control - audioserver gui app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849026
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #23 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4633650
$ rpmlint -i -v *
jam-control.src: I: checking
jam-control.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pulseaudio - pulse
audio, pulse-audio, audiovisuals
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
jam-control.src: I: checking-url https://gitorious.org/jam-control (timeout 10
seconds)
jam-control.src: I: checking-url
http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/jam-control/jam-control-1.03.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
jam-control.noarch: I: checking
jam-control.noarch: I: checking-url https://gitorious.org/jam-control (timeout
10 seconds)
jam-control.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jam-control
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
jam-control.spec: I: checking-url
http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/jam-control/jam-control-1.03.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
No recognizable issues.
-
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.
GPLv3+
[+] 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 *
585c68c2e8321dc662b12320bc48a1d949f24008f163fca567081284dedc1711
jam-control-1.03.tar.gz
585c68c2e8321dc662b12320bc48a1d949f24008f163fca567081284dedc1711
jam-control-1.03.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a
[Bug 868936] Review Request: python-apsw - Another Python SQLite Wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- $ rpmlint -i -v * ... python-apsw.spec:60: W: macro-in-%changelog %global Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. python-apsw.spec:60: W: macro-in-%changelog %define Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Please escape the macros in %changelog, and your package is ready for a full review (and for approval, too). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide:
* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4633677
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are false positives:
Auriga ~/Desktop: rpmlint rtaudio-*
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real
time, real-time
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api - pi, ape, apt
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d
rtaudio.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rtaudio-4.0.11-fe.tar.gz
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime,
real time, real-time
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api - pi, ape, apt
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -
mealtime, real time, real-time
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch,
mufti
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api - pi, ape,
apt
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de - DE, ed, d
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
Auriga ~/Desktop:
+ 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 (MIT).
0 No licensing info provided in tarball.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ 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.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ 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.
0 No static libraries.
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 requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4
and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
I don't see any other issues so this package is
APPROVED.
ps If you have a spare time then could you please review this in return?
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/869301
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 468466] Review Request: libgksu - Simple API for su and sudo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468466 Bug 468466 depends on bug 844192, which changed state. Bug 844192 Summary: Review Request: gksu-polkit - Command line utility to run programs as root https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844192 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844192] Review Request: gksu-polkit - Command line utility to run programs as root
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844192 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-28 13:14:09 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203 --- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- What about a SCM request...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #11 from Andrew Colin Kissa and...@topdog.za.net --- * I have sent upstream an email with regards to fixing the fsf address. * There is no need for me to delete the bin sub directory as that does not make it into the package. [andrew@build2 ~]$ rpm -qlp /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/snmptt-1.4-0.4.beta2.fc17.noarch.rpm /etc/logrotate.d/snmptt /etc/snmp/snmptt.conf /etc/snmp/snmptt.ini /usr/bin/snmpttconvert /usr/bin/snmpttconvertmib /usr/lib/systemd/system/snmptt.service /usr/sbin/snmptt /usr/sbin/snmptthandler /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4 /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/COPYING /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/README /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/contrib /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/contrib/README /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/contrib/sendemail.sh /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/faqs.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/index.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/layout1.css /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/snmptt.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/snmpttconvert.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/docs/snmpttconvertmib.html /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap-daemon /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap.generic /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-trap.generic.daemon /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-unknown-trap /usr/share/doc/snmptt-1.4/examples/sample-unknown-trap-daemon /var/log/snmptt /var/spool/snmptt * I have fixed the incorrect source files. * Please find the updated spec and srpm. http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt.spec http://topdog-software.com/oss/SRPMS/fedora/snmptt/snmptt-1.4-0.4.beta2.fc17.noarch.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 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Ok, then please file a new review request for openscg (you might reuse the current spec and srpm, adding a new changelog entry) and mark the current one as a duplicate of yours. Then I will sponsor you and review openscg first. Once it it is built and submitted for testing, we go ahead with openscad. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 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 --- The source tarball contains a bundled egg-info. Please remove it before building your package (in the %prep section): rm -rf src/llfuse.egg-info Maybe you have to add python-setuptools to BR. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs for more information. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Sorry for the blurb, this is the wrong 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 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- The source tarball contains a bundled egg-info. Please remove it before building your package (in the %prep section): rm -rf src/llfuse.egg-info Maybe you have to add python-setuptools to BR. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs for more information. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- BTW, Python is not needed as an explicit requirement. It will be picked up by rpm automatically. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848990] Review Request: libnetfilter_acct - A library providing interface to extended accounting infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848990
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 #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Remove COPYING from the -devel package. It is present anyway due to that the
base package is required by the -devel package.
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
has to be
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
because your package is not arch-independent.
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
is an artifact from older Fedora releases. It is obsolete since F10/EPEL6.
Explicit versioning of libmnl-devel in BuildRequires is not needed, all
supported releases (even EPEL5) have at least libmnl-devel-1.0.1.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 --- Comment #15 from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com --- Filed as bug 870786 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870725] Review Request: sucrack - A su cracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870725
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 ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
sucrack.src: I: checking
sucrack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) su - sew, us, s
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -
multicolored
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US su - sew, us, s
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins - losing, loins,
lo gins
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.src: I: checking-url http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack.shtml
(timeout 10 seconds)
sucrack.src: I: checking-url
http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack/sucrack-1.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
sucrack.i686: I: checking
sucrack.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) su - sew, us, s
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -
multicolored
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US su - sew, us, s
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins - losing, loins,
lo gins
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.i686: I: checking-url http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack.shtml
(timeout 10 seconds)
sucrack.x86_64: I: checking
sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) su - sew, us, s
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -
multicolored
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US su - sew, us, s
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins - losing,
loins, lo gins
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
sucrack.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack.shtml (timeout 10 seconds)
sucrack-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
sucrack-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url
http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack.shtml (timeout 10 seconds)
sucrack-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
sucrack-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack.shtml (timeout 10 seconds)
sucrack.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.leidecker.info/projects/sucrack/sucrack-1.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
No real issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
BSD
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
f0cce09be99e1b3bc04e0d0e36424b61f187d1a6501597a30c7aeaf3bab73bab
sucrack-1.2.3.tar.gz
f0cce09be99e1b3bc04e0d0e36424b61f187d1a6501597a30c7aeaf3bab73bab
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks Jørn Updated here: SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-daw.spec SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-daw-1.1.0-0.2.gitae6b78cf.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 866325] Review Request: ugene - genome analysis suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866325 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(yalg...@unipro.ru ||) --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Yuliya, 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 870788] New: Review Request: ros-release - Robot Operating System release files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870788 Bug ID: 870788 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: ros-release - Robot Operating System release files Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: richmat...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/ros-release/ros-release.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/ros-release/ros-release-4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: ROS Release files, macros, and common directories for ROS packages Fedora Account System Username: rmattes This package mimics fedora-release and provides RPM macros, an /etc/ros-release file, and common filesystem components (currently /etc/ros). The plan is to share these components when building other ROS packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869301] Review Request: erlpmd - A drop-in replacement for epmd written in Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869301 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- I'll take this on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870719] Review Request: horst - A highly optimized radio scanning tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870719
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 ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
horst.src: I: checking
horst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hoc - ho, choc, hock
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
horst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neighbourhood -
neighborhood, neighborliness
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
horst.src: I: checking-url http://br1.einfach.org/tech/horst/ (timeout 10
seconds)
horst.src: I: checking-url http://br1.einfach.org/horst_dl/horst-3.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
horst.i686: I: checking
horst.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hoc - ho, choc, hock
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
horst.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neighbourhood -
neighborhood, neighborliness
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
horst.i686: I: checking-url http://br1.einfach.org/tech/horst/ (timeout 10
seconds)
horst.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary horst
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
horst.x86_64: I: checking
horst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hoc - ho, choc, hock
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
horst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neighbourhood -
neighborhood, neighborliness
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
horst.x86_64: I: checking-url http://br1.einfach.org/tech/horst/ (timeout 10
seconds)
horst.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary horst
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
horst-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
horst-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://br1.einfach.org/tech/horst/
(timeout 10 seconds)
horst-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
horst-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://br1.einfach.org/tech/horst/
(timeout 10 seconds)
horst.spec: I: checking-url http://br1.einfach.org/horst_dl/horst-3.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Just one issue: neighbourhood is British English. But doesn't matter, it
isn't worth to change it actually.
-
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.
GPLv2+
[+] 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 *
7d8de85ff8715f3bea7ccecc0382e2d3c48bccce4be6dee5f1d0d15447776cc8
horst-3.0.tar.gz
7d8de85ff8715f3bea7ccecc0382e2d3c48bccce4be6dee5f1d0d15447776cc8
horst-3.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any
[Bug 870788] Review Request: ros-release - Robot Operating System release files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870788 Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||858105 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858105] Review Request: python-rosdep - ROS System Dependency Installer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858105 Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||870788 --- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rosdep/python-rosdep.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/rosdep/python-rosdep-0.10.7-1.20121028gita9d29d2.fc17.src.rpm Updated to address the above concerns, and to use the ros-release package. The file 20-sources.list doesn't get installed by RPM, it gets written by rosdep when you call rosdep init. So we can't use config noreplace since it's not being installed as a config file. We do want to get rid of it when rosdep is uninstalled though, so i created a ghost file that tells RPM that the file is still part of the package, but doesn't get installed at the same time as the rest of the package. I think this is the correct way to accomplish this. I also filed a bug upstream about the missing license file at https://github.com/ros/rosdep/issues/29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869301] Review Request: erlpmd - A drop-in replacement for epmd written in Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869301
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
A few comments:
- package meets current erlang precedents/guidelines
- correct use of systemd scriplets and serivces. The %systemd_requires macro
can be used to specify the requires
- user and groups handled correctly (although a slightly more detailed useradd
description would be nice)
- rpmlint output is not silent but are all false positives
- as you are upstream it would be nice to call the license file LICENSE or
COPYING, but that's really up to you
None of these are blockers. Full review below.
Peter this package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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.
[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.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-
erlpmd/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 installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[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 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review Peter! I noticed you have other review pending also, as do I. Let me know in an email if you want to discuss some trades. I can offer reasonably quick turnarounds - we are under some pressure to get these packages into stable pre final audio spin compose. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863795] Review Request: kadu - An Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863795
--- Comment #2 from Karol Trzcionka karl...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://karlik.fedorapeople.org/kadu.spec
SRPM URL: http://karlik.fedorapeople.org/kadu-0.12.2-2.fc19.src.rpm
I do some cleanup. Most of the problems was the heritage of previous
maintainer.
Use %global instead of %define.
DONE
There's a libiris bundle. Rex managed to create a separate package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749885
I've disabled temporarily jabber_protocol because there is not origin libiris
but it is modified. I try to contact with devs, maybe it would be exception:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Needing_unreleased_features
It doesn't provide own iris library (in fact, it is compiled and statically
linked).
Don't BR phonon, sqlite and the likes. Only BR the devel sub-packages.
DONE
Since you can't go for EPEL 5, please remove buildroot definition, clean
section and the first rm in the install section. defattr is no longer necessary
either.
DONE
What's the idea of having -k with make?
I didn't notice it, removed.
I can't see why several sub-packages should be GPLv3+. Sub-packages should use
the ?_isa macro when requiring the base package.
I'm not the lawyer, I think it was added because the external plugins are
GPLv3+, the core client is GPL2v+.
You can use the name macro in Source0. You can drop -n kadu-%{version} from
the setup macro.
DONE
I noticed this warning:
+ desktop-file-install --vendor fedora --delete-original --dir
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/kadu-0.12.2-1.fc16.x86_64/usr/share/applications
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/kadu-0.12.2-1.fc16.x86_64/usr/share/applications/kadu.desktop
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/kadu-0.12.2-1.fc16.x86_64/usr/share/applications/fedora-kadu.desktop:
warning: value Instant Messenger for key Comment in group Desktop Entry
looks redundant with value Instant Messenger of key GenericName
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/kadu-0.12.2-1.fc16.x86_64/usr/share/applications/fedora-kadu.desktop:
warning: value Komunikator internetowy for key Comment[pl] in group
Desktop Entry looks redundant with value Komunikator internetowy of key
GenericName[pl]
I think it is not a problem, the desktop file is provided by upstream.
The locales are not handled properly, please compare
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
DONE.
I personally consider the files section a bit over-detailled.
I think now it's better.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rtaudio Short Description: realtime audio I/O library Owners: bsjones nando Branches:f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868879] Review Request: perl-TAP-SimpleOutput - Simple closure-driven TAP generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868879
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=4633915
$ rpmlint -i -v *perl-TAP-SimpleOutput.noarch: I: checking
perl-TAP-SimpleOutput.noarch: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/TAP-SimpleOutput/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-TAP-SimpleOutput.src: I: checking
perl-TAP-SimpleOutput.src: I: checking-url
http://search.cpan.org/dist/TAP-SimpleOutput/ (timeout 10 seconds)
perl-TAP-SimpleOutput.src: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RS/RSRCHBOY/TAP-SimpleOutput-0.001.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
perl-TAP-SimpleOutput.spec: I: checking-url
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/R/RS/RSRCHBOY/TAP-SimpleOutput-0.001.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Perfectly, no issues. As far as I can see, there are no other problems which
are not recognized by rpmlint. Here we go:
-
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 *
ffe9e9db9ec664c2f2bfa6457d4a4e3b512dfede10cd3708b75b72b74aa78af5
TAP-SimpleOutput-0.001.tar.gz
ffe9e9db9ec664c2f2bfa6457d4a4e3b512dfede10cd3708b75b72b74aa78af5
TAP-SimpleOutput-0.001.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST:
[Bug 866428] Review Request: php-theseer-fDOMDocument - An Extension to PHP standard DOM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866428 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- On our request, upstream have fix https://github.com/theseer/fDOMDocument/issues/14 So update to version 1.3.2 Changes: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/a34a9c4215cb2e42ef3ac07348cff9f09ca2cbec Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php/theseer/php-theseer-fDOMDocument/php-theseer-fDOMDocument.spec SRPM: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-theseer-fDOMDocument-1.3.2-1.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 868325] Review Request: expatpp - A tiny OO C++ wrapper around expat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868325 --- Comment #5 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com --- All done: http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/expatpp-0-1.20121019gitd8c1bf8.fc17.src.rpm + Builds in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4634028 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869301] Review Request: erlpmd - A drop-in replacement for epmd written in Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869301 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Thanks Brendan! I'll add some licensing info in the next version. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlpmd Short Description: A drop-in replacement for epmd written in Erlang Owners: peter Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868325] Review Request: expatpp - A tiny OO C++ wrapper around expat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868325 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- I don's see any other issues so this 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 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the comments! This will not build with Fedora's waf so using the bundled one. Have addressed your other issues. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedoraproject.org/ladish-2-0.3.git2c3c3f0.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedoraproject.org/ladish.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Brendan, the links are innaccesible (Error 404: Not found) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Apologies! SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/ladish-2-0.3.git2c3c3f0.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/ladish.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830270] Review Request: python-hgdistver - Python library to generate package version info from mercurial tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830270
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4634074
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking
python-hgdistver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mercurial's -
mercurial, commercial's
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/anyvc
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/hgdistver/hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.noarch: I: checking
python-hgdistver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mercurial's -
mercurial, commercial's
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/anyvc
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/hgdistver/hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Some ignorable spelling errors, nothing of interest so far.
The source tarball contains a bundled egg-info. Please remove it before
building your package (in the %prep section) so that it gets rebuilt:
rm -rf %{srcname}.egg-info
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs for more
information.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869301] Review Request: erlpmd - A drop-in replacement for epmd written in Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869301 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870631] Review Request: libnatspec - Library for national and language-specific issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870631 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.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 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.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 865997] Review Request: caledonia-kde-theme - a dark theme for KDE plasma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865997 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/caledonia-kde-theme-1.2.0-1.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852211] Review Request: dunst - dmenu-ish lightweight notification-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #22 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- BTW, in the meantime we've got a new version 0.4.0: http://www.knopwob.org/public/dunst-release/dunst-0.4.0.tar.bz2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #7 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- fixed the issue, duh this was a stupid one lol 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.r1-5.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 863795] Review Request: kadu - An Gadu-Gadu client for online messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863795 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Sorry, my bad, I only looked at kadu-0.12.2.tar.bz2 when I browsed through the licenses. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797203] Review Request: augeas-vala - Vala bindings for augeas.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797203 Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de --- Thanks for reminding. I'm not so often proposing packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012
Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
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.
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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: 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/makerpm/rpmbuild/REVIEW/866012-non-daw/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be
[Bug 849026] Review Request: jam-control - audioserver gui app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849026 Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jam-control Short Description: Audioserver control gui Owners: jvlomax 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 870615] Review Request: snmptt - An SNMP trap handler written in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870615
--- Comment #12 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
You uploaded the wrong file, that's not the SRPM.
You're right about the binaries, I interpreted the rule wrong way.
For the sake of consistency in your file, you could change
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}
install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}
to
install -D -p -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service
You can simplify the scriptlets like this:
%preun
%if 0%{?fedora} = 15 || 0%{?rhel} = 7
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
# Package removal, not upgrade
/bin/systemctl --no-reload disable %{name}.service /dev/null 21 || :
/bin/systemctl stop %{name}.service /dev/null 21 || :
fi
%else
#Umständlich angeschrieben, Stil angleichen
if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
/sbin/service snmptt stop /dev/null 21
/sbin/chkconfig --del snmptt
fi
%endif
--
%preun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
%if 0%{?fedora} = 15 || 0%{?rhel} = 7
# Package removal, not upgrade
/bin/systemctl --no-reload disable %{name}.service /dev/null 21 || :
/bin/systemctl stop %{name}.service /dev/null 21 || :
%else
/sbin/service snmptt stop /dev/null 21
/sbin/chkconfig --del snmptt
%endif
fi
If you don't want to simplify it, don't mix -eq 0 and = 0.
Anyway, neither is a blocker and I can't find anything else to nag about. As
soon as you upload the SRPM, I can start the formal review.
Concerning the comment on top of the file: I think that's not related to
packaging, but rather to the software itsself. If you're interested in that,
please create a ticket 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 863571] Review Request: flare - A single player, 2D-isometric, action Role-Playing Game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863571 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 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 870853] New: Review Request: haven - Next Generation Backup System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870853
Bug ID: 870853
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Clone Of: 768894
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: dben...@gmail.com, dben...@redhat.com,
leamas.a...@gmail.com, nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org,
tchollingswo...@gmail.com, ti...@math.uh.edu,
tur...@ntsc.com
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Summary: Review Request: haven - Next Generation Backup System
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Linux
Reporter: dben...@gmail.com
Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Hardware: All
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #768894 +++
Spec URL: http://www.dbenini.com/haven/fedora/haven.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.dbenini.com/haven/fedora/haven-0.0.2-2.fc16.src.rpm
Description:
SafeHaven is a next generation backup system, from desktop personal backup to
enterprise disaster recovery.
Features:
* Personal backup
* Enterprise backup
* Disaster recovery
* Heavy deduplication compression
Notes:
- This is my first Fedora package and I'm looking for sponsorship.
- The package builds in mock.
--- Additional comment from dben...@redhat.com on 2011-12-19 05:58:59 EST ---
rpmlint output:
haven.spec:57: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
haven.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: haven-icons-0.0.2.tar.gz
haven.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: haven-0.0.2.tar.gz
--- Additional comment from tchollingswo...@gmail.com on 2011-12-20 09:38:26
EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
haven.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: haven-icons-0.0.2.tar.gz
haven.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: haven-0.0.2.tar.gz
If you can't provide the full URL to these sources in SourceN for some reason,
you need to add a comment indicating how to obtain them. For more information,
see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
You used haven-gtkgui as the subpackage for the GUI application, but most
Fedora packages use subpackages like haven-gtk. Consider changing it to be
consistent with existing packages.
You call the -full subpackage the Basic version in the summary. I think
you got that backwards. ;-)
Also, consider briefly articulating the difference between the full and basic
versions in the %description, to assist users in deciding which one to install.
(See yum info vim-minimal vim-enhanced for an example.)
--- Additional comment from tchollingswo...@gmail.com on 2011-12-20 09:41:22
EST ---
One More Thing...unless the GUI is guaranteed to work with any version of the
software always and forever, you probably want to version that dependency,
e.g.:
Requires: haven = %{version}-%{release}
--- Additional comment from dben...@redhat.com on 2011-12-24 14:48:47 EST ---
Hi T.C.,
thank you very much for the review.
I've made the suggested changes to the spec file and re-packaged the
application:
Spec URL: http://www.dbenini.com/haven/fedora/haven.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.dbenini.com/haven/fedora/haven-0.0.2-3.fc16.src.rpm
* Koji scratch build info:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3603971
* rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint -v haven.spec
haven.spec:60: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
haven.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: haven-icons-0.0.2.tar.gz
haven.spec: I: checking-url
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/safe-haven/haven-0.0.2.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint -v haven
haven.x86_64: I: checking
haven.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/safe-haven/
(timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint -v haven-enhanced
haven-enhanced.x86_64: I: checking
haven-enhanced.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://sourceforge.net/projects/safe-haven/ (timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint -v haven-gtk
haven-gtk.x86_64: I: checking
haven-gtk.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/safe-haven/
(timeout 10 seconds)
haven-gtk.x86_64: W: no-documentation
haven-gtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ghaven
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
--- Additional comment from jamieli...@fedoraproject.org on 2012-02-08 06:39:24
EST ---
Some comments:
1) BuildRoot tag is no longer required
2) Removing %{buildroot} in the %install section is no longer required
3) %clean section no longer required
4) defattr in %files section is no longer required
--- Additional comment from dben...@redhat.com on 2012-02-12 18:51:58 EST ---
Thank you Jamie,
I removed useless sections and tags as suggested.
* Updated spec file and source RPM:
Spec URL:
[Bug 768894] Review Request: haven - Next Generation Backup System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768894 Davide Benini dben...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dben...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #16 from Davide Benini dben...@gmail.com --- I cloned the ticket as suggested by Michael, please continue here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870853 Thank you Michael, awesome source! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Guillermo, I've talked with upstream and given me a tarball with separate license, here is the new specs and SRPM SPEC: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/5/sha.spec SRPMS: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/5/sha-1.0.4b-1.fc17.src.rpm with respect at the file ltmain.sh,It includes a text which reads: As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. I therefore I think not necessary to include GPLv2 at the tag license Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870860] New: Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860 Bug ID: 870860 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: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: m...@hroncok.cz Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/gregjurman/opencsg-spec/master/opencsg.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/gregjurman/opencsg-spec/raw/master/opencsg-1.3.2-5.fc17.src.rpm Description: CSG is short for Constructive Solid Geometry and denotes an approach to model complex 3D-shapes using simpler ones. I.e., two shapes can be combined by taking the union of them, by intersecting them, or by subtracting one shape of the other. The most basic shapes, which are not result of such a CSG operation, are called primitives. Primitives must be solid, i.e., they must have a clearly defined interior and exterior. By construction, a CSG shape is also solid then. Image-based CSG rendering (also z-buffer CSG rendering) is a term that denotes algorithms for rendering CSG shapes without an explicit calculation of the geometric boundary of a CSG shape. Such algorithms use frame-buffer settings of the graphics hardware, e.g., the depth and stencil buffer, to compose CSG shapes. OpenCSG implements a variety of those algorithms, namely the Goldfeather algorithm and the SCS algorithm, both of them in several variants. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard Retaken bug #678955 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870860] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860 --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- I am sorry, I've sended it before editation, here are correct links: Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/opencsg-spec/master/opencsg.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/hroncok/opencsg-spec/raw/master/opencsg-1.3.2-5.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 825489] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825489 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|864187 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|825489 |870860 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870860] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||864187 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825489] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825489 --- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- Taking this over from here: Bug #870860 Will apreciate any help from you with further package versions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|870860 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870860] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|864187 |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 870860] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Clone Of||864187 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #8 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- OK, bug #870860 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870860] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860 Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||864187 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
