[Bug 864315] Review Request: lonote - Personal Notebook based on Qt Webkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864315 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Hi Robin, Here's the review: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/lonote.spec lonote-1.8.7-1.fc17.src.rpm lonote.src: W: strange-permission lonote.spec 0600L lonote.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %setup ../SPECS/lonote.spec:22: W: macro-in-comment %setup lonote.src: W: strange-permission lonote.spec 0600L lonote.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %setup 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ ^^ Looks okay. The permissions of the spec etc are wrong for some reason though. [+] License is acceptable [+] License field in spec is correct [+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [-] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/lonote.spec Getting http://lonote.googlecode.com/files/lonote-1.8.7.7z to /tmp/review/lonote-1.8.7.7z % Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed 100 532k 100 532k0 0 362k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 450k 019878f95567dde43dcb5e4a07660c07 /tmp/review/lonote-1.8.7.7z 019878f95567dde43dcb5e4a07660c07 /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/lonote-1.8.7.7z removed `/tmp/review/lonote-1.8.7.7z' removed directory: `/tmp/review' [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [+] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [-] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [+] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [-] %doc files not required at runtime [+] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [+] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [-] Query upstream about including license files [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) ^ Not verified. Please verify [-] Scriptlets are sane [-] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [-] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [-] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [+] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [-] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [-] Useful without external bits [-] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on = F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on F17 [-] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on EL6 [+] Requires correct, justified where necessary [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [-] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [-] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [-] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [-] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on EL6 [-] No static executables [-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified
[Bug 823122] Review Request: zookeeper - A high-performance coordination service for distributed applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823122 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- hi Michael, isn't true. debian for e.g. split zookepeer in several packages see http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/zookeeper for now i haven't intention to add a systemd script, use only java package just for import: http://hbase.apache.org/ http://incubator.apache.org/hama/ http://whirr.apache.org/ http://www.hibernate.org/subprojects/search.html thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #6) Can you please set the review flag to ? as required, so folks know the review is under way? Oh, I forgot that. After all it is approved Approved by cheeselee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864315] Review Request: lonote - Personal Notebook based on Qt Webkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864315 Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com --- Thanks, Ankur. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lonote Short Description: Personal Notebook based on Qt Webkit Owners: cheeselee 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 856516] Review Request: perl-podlators - Format POD source into various output formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856516 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-podlators-2.4.2-2.fc19 --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Thanks Robin! :D New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xword Short Description: Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format Owners: ankursinha 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 870323] Review Request: glogg - Smart interactive log explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870323 --- Comment #6 from Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl --- (In reply to comment #5) Please package the newest version 0.9.0! That was my initial approach. However the 0.9 is marked as a first version on the development branch towards 1.0. I even gave it a try, but the gcc reported some warnings like: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void additionally while running under valgrind it reports some uninitialized variables. Based on that I would prefer to stick to the latest stable version 0.8.3 for a while and switch to 1.0 once available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870323] Review Request: glogg - Smart interactive log explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870323 Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: glogg Short Description: Smart interactive log explorer Owners: dwrobel 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 856516] Review Request: perl-podlators - Format POD source into various output formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856516 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-10-31 04:17:59 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- perl-podlators removed from perl-5.16.1-241.fc19. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859504] Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Update to new major version 3.0.0 https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/02335b381fb00c98a9bca31c0322db480116cf8b Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php/php-xcache/php-xcache.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-xcache-3.0.0-1.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 846008] Review Request: dsqlite - DSQLite is a Hight level library for SQLite in D programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846008 --- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- you missed one: - Is there really no Requires for this package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901
--- Comment #11 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
I think we can still improve this:
install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/thumbnailers
cat config/gogui.thumbnailer | sed
s;/usr/bin/gogui-thumbnailer;$PREFIX/bin/gogui-thumbnailer; \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}/share/thumbnailers/gogui.thumbnailer
- consistent use of %{_datadir}
- put the sed in %prep
- use install to install the file as you did for the others
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828188] Review Request: reprepro - Debian package repository producer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828188 --- Comment #14 from Sebastien Caps sebastien.c...@guardis.com --- upstream reply for sha256 fc18 warnings: *** sha256.c:192:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] sha256.c:193:3: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing] Those should be harmless. If you want to be sure, you can cherry-pick commit 2688a890 (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=mirrorer/reprepro.git;a=commit;h=2688a890). *** So I put this patch in the last version: SRPM: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/20121031/reprepro-4.12.3-5.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/20121031/reprepro.spec F18 Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4642198 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303
Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Clément DAVID c.davi...@gmail.com ---
Fine, I have never packaged any perl application or module so you may probably
be right :).
PACKAGE 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.
[ ]: 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). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/davidcl/rpmbuild/review/review-
realTimeConfigQuickScan/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.
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Reguires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version)) missing?
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[!]:
[Bug 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 --- Comment #12 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. If you are using fedora-review you need to action all of the [ ] items to show that you've manually checked them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- (In reply to comment #4) Benedikt is right, it doesn't build in mock: + /usr/bin/python setup.py build Traceback (most recent call last): File setup.py, line 7, in module from DistUtilsExtra.command import * ImportError: No module named DistUtilsExtra.command Fehler beim Bauen des RPM: Fehler: Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Y6MZro (%build) Fehler-Status beim Beenden von /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Y6MZro (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. = add python-distutils-extra as BuildRequires. Done. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/updf.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846008] Review Request: dsqlite - DSQLite is a Hight level library for SQLite in D programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846008 --- Comment #10 from Christophe Burgun jo...@fedoraproject.org --- Sorry, There isn't Requires needed for the main package just for the devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092 --- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #1) You have to write the BuildRequires like that: BuildRequires: pkgconfig, gettext, ..., ..., ... It doesn't matter if one uses one line or several lines. However there are at least two problems with this package. Benedikt, please look a little closer at the %files section, maybe you find them. ;) Maybe I'm able to find them :). 1) On the Packaging:Guidelines wiki I read: ... desktop-file-install MUST be used if the package does not install the file or there are changes desired to the .desktop file so maybe I must also add 'desktop-file-install' apart from 'desktop-file-check'. 2) I don't know if the %post %postun scriptlet are necessary in this case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863571] Review Request: flare - A single player, 2D-isometric, action Role-Playing Game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863571
--- Comment #17 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Ad cosmetics:
You're adding an extra slash in front of /usr . It works and I personally
don't mind.
rm -f
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/%{name}/mods/default/fonts/LiberationSans-Regular.ttf
=
rm -f
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/flare-0.17.1-4.fc16.x86_64//usr/share/flare/mods/default/fonts/LiberationSans-Regular.ttf
rm -f
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/mods/default/fonts/LiberationSans-Regular.ttf
=
rm -f
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/flare-0.17.1-4.fc16.x86_64/usr/share/flare/mods/default/fonts/LiberationSans-Regular.ttf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819951] Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating system develop/build/deploy tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819951 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(walt...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #17 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Apologies for the review delay! I ran into some problem following the instructions at https://live.gnome.org/OSTree/GnomeOSTree : # ostree pull --repo=repo --related gnome Fetching http://ostree.gnome.org/repo/config Invalid mode 'archive-z2' in repository configuration Any idea what could be causing this? On Fedora 18, using the latest build of linux-user-chroot from Koji -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de Flags|fedora-review+ | --- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- I regret, but can not avoid to REVOKE the APPROVAL. This package is not ready for approval and needs more work. There are several major issues: - .hg in sources Please remove them from your source tarball. - Permissions are not handled correctly. The files you are sed'ing /usr/bin/perl from need to be chmod +x'ed instead of /usr/bin/perl be sed'ed out. - perl()-Requires/provides are bogus. They need to be filtered. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 --- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Created attachment 636014 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=636014action=edit reworked *.spec This a proposal to address the issues mentioned in comment #13. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832831] Review Request: php-pirum-Pirum - A simple PEAR channel server manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832831 --- 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 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303
--- Comment #15 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Thanks Ralf, all done.
SRPM:
http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/realTimeConfigQuickScan-0-0.7.20120506hg.fc18.src.rpm
SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/realTimeConfigQuickScan.spec
Should I also be using %{perl_vendorlib} as mentioned by Clement?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864315] Review Request: lonote - Personal Notebook based on Qt Webkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864315 --- Comment #8 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 867396] Review Request: yubikey-personalization-gui - A gui tool to personalize yubikeys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867396 --- 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 870323] Review Request: glogg - Smart interactive log explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870323 --- Comment #8 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 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 --- Comment #10 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- fixed Update: Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-llfuse.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-llfuse-0.37.1-8.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 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Burgun jo...@fedoraproject.org ---
- The /usr/share has been changed with the macro %{_datadir}
- The sed has been push in %prep section
- The installation for thumbnailer is now with install command
New links :
SPEC : http://jouty.fedorapeople.org/gogui.spec
SRPM : http://jouty.fedorapeople.org/gogui-1.4.6-4.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870978] Review Request: libcdio-paranoia - CD paranoia on top of libcdio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870978 Frantisek Kluknavsky fkluk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fkluk...@redhat.com CC||fkluk...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092 --- Comment #7 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #1) Hi Antonio, You have to write the BuildRequires like that: BuildRequires: pkgconfig, gettext, ..., ..., ... also the Requires: pycairo, ..., ... Note: I am not a packanger just on the way to become, so don't count on me to much ;)! Sorry it was my mistake! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870978] Review Request: libcdio-paranoia - CD paranoia on top of libcdio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870978 Frantisek Kluknavsky fkluk...@redhat.com 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 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 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 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #8 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[?]: %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.
[!]: 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.
[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
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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.
[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 (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/871092-updf/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.
[?]: 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.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[?]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?)
[?]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[?]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball
[Bug 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xword-1.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xword-1.0-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xword-1.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xword-1.0-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939
--- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4642480
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-llfuse.src: I: checking
python-llfuse.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/python-llfuse/
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-llfuse.src: I: checking-url
http://python-llfuse.googlecode.com/files/llfuse-0.37.1.tar.bz2 (timeout 10
seconds)
python-llfuse.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://python-llfuse.googlecode.com/files/llfuse-0.37.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
python-llfuse.i686: I: checking
python-llfuse.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/python-llfuse/
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-llfuse.x86_64: I: checking
python-llfuse.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/python-llfuse/
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-llfuse-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
python-llfuse-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url
http://code.google.com/p/python-llfuse/ (timeout 10 seconds)
python-llfuse-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
python-llfuse-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://code.google.com/p/python-llfuse/ (timeout 10 seconds)
python-llfuse.spec: I: checking-url
http://python-llfuse.googlecode.com/files/llfuse-0.37.1.tar.bz2 (timeout 10
seconds)
python-llfuse.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://python-llfuse.googlecode.com/files/llfuse-0.37.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
No real issues anymore.
-
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+
[x] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
The LICENSE file is still missing from %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 *
047f29c2d0363766807ba21b72a68f66022eddde642e7c7f167145fa1a2b6782
llfuse-0.37.1.tar.bz2
047f29c2d0363766807ba21b72a68f66022eddde642e7c7f167145fa1a2b6782
llfuse-0.37.1.tar.bz2.packaged
[+] 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:
[Bug 468466] Review Request: libgksu - Simple API for su and sudo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468466 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|468467 |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed|2008-12-26 20:05:12 |2012-10-31 07:56:30 --- Comment #17 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- The submitter of this review request is no longer willing to maintain the package. Moreover, libgksu has probably superseded by gksu-polkit. That's why I close this bug, adding FE-DEADREVIEW. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901
--- Comment #13 from Florencia Fotorello ffoto...@redhat.com ---
Hello,
Some informal comments:
1) You can use %{name}.desktop instead of gogui.desktop.
2) Regarding rpmlint output, just some comments, no action needed:
--
gogui.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR
gogui.noarch: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
--
Details:
=== gogui.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR
A dictionary for the Enchant spell checking library is not available for the
language given in the info message. Spell checking will proceed with
rpmlint's built-in implementation for localized tags in this language.
=== gogui.noarch: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
All current versions of Fedora (and their respective RPM versions) treat the
Group tag as optional. Packages may include a Group: field for compatibility
with EPEL, but are not required to do so.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Group_tag
3) rpmlint output for .src.rpm is:
-
gogui.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR
gogui.src: W: non-standard-group Unspecified
gogui.src:115: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:116: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:117: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:118: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:119: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:120: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:121: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:122: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:123: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:124: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:125: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src:128: E: files-attr-not-set
gogui.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
gogui.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
gogui.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
gogui.src: W: no-%clean-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 5 warnings.
-
Details:
=== gogui.src:115: E: files-attr-not-set
This is now the default and no longer necessary to explicitly include.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions
=== gogui.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
It’s only necessary for F-12 and below or EPEL 5.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
=== gogui.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must be used in order to allow
building the package as non root on some systems. For some rpm versions (e.g.
rpm.org = 4.6) the BuildRoot tag is not necessary in specfiles and is ignored
by rpmbuild; if your package is only going to be built with such rpm versions
you can ignore this warning.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871339] Review Request: jmtpfs - FUSE and libmtp based file system for accessing MTP devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ndbeck...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com --- Tested on F17. Thanks for this! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Some (or maybe all?) source file headers contain the newer versions clause
regarding the license, that's why the license is GPLv3+.
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(python2)
is a recursive requirement of pycairo, you can drop it.
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(pycairo)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(poppler)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ruby-gdk-pixbuf2)
That's OK, and it makes sure that rpm will find the runtime dependencies due to
system calls during the build. You can drop the following:
Requires: pycairo
Requires: poppler
Requires: rubygem-gdk_pixbuf2
%lang(ca) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/ca/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(cs) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/cs/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(de) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/de/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(eo) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/eo/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(es) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/es/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(eu) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/eu/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(sk) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/sk/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(zh_CN) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
Therefore we have the %find_lang macro:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
python-setuptools-devel is virtually provided by python-setuptools. You can use
the latter, because python-setuptools-devel doesn't really exist.
Please bump the release tag each time you change the package, even in the
current state. Fill the %changelog with some useful info instead of repeating
the version and release number.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871191] Review Request: sendKindle - CLI tool for sending files via email to your Amazon Kindle device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871191 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- I'll review this happily -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #12 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- fixed Update: Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-llfuse.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-llfuse-0.37.1-9.fc17.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4642712 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871339] Review Request: jmtpfs - FUSE and libmtp based file system for accessing MTP devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339 Siddharth Sharma sisha...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sisha...@redhat.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819951] Review Request: ostree - Linux-based operating system develop/build/deploy tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819951 Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(walt...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #18 from Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #17) Apologies for the review delay! I ran into some problem following the instructions at https://live.gnome.org/OSTree/GnomeOSTree : # ostree pull --repo=repo --related gnome Fetching http://ostree.gnome.org/repo/config Invalid mode 'archive-z2' in repository configuration Any idea what could be causing this? On Fedora 18, using the latest build of linux-user-chroot from Koji I added a new repository format, it's only in git at the moment. I'll do a new ostree release soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863983] Review Request: ninja-ide - Ninja IDE for Python development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863983 Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-31 09:22:37 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- OK, your package is APPROVED. For future releases, try to build it also for Python 3, as mentioned in the package description. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806117] Review Request: Oplop - Generate account passwords based on account nicknames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806117 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Ping...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846008] Review Request: dsqlite - DSQLite is a Hight level library for SQLite in D programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846008 --- Comment #11 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- So this package is functional even without a D compiler? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com ---
(In reply to comment #9)
%lang(ca) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/ca/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(cs) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/cs/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(de) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/de/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(eo) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/eo/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(es) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/es/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(eu) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/eu/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(sk) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/sk/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
%lang(zh_CN) %{_datadir}/locale-langpack/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo
Therefore we have the %find_lang macro:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
I tried to use this macro but I obtain:
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/de
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/de/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/de/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-
langpack/de/LC_MESSAGES
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/eo
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/eo/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/eo/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/eo/LC_MESSAGES
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/eu
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/eu/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/eu/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/eu/LC_MESSAGES
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/cs
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/cs/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/cs/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/cs/LC_MESSAGES
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/ca
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/ca/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/ca/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/ca/LC_MESSAGES
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/zh_CN
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/es
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/es/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/es/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/es/LC_MESSAGES
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/sk
creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/sk/LC_MESSAGES
copying build/locale-langpack/sk/LC_MESSAGES/updf.mo -
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/locale-langpack/sk/LC_MESSAGES
running install_egg_info
Creating
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/
Writing
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/updf-0.0.2.4-py2.7.egg-info
+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-lang.sh
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64 updf
No translations found for updf in
/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2blK3U (%install)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2blK3U (%install)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863445] Review Request: sisu-guice - Lightweight dependency injection framework for Java 5 and above
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863445 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-31 10:48:39 --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- This package was just pushed to rawhide, except that I kept the old name (google-guice). This means that a formal review wasn't needed after all, but thank you for it anyways! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867396] Review Request: yubikey-personalization-gui - A gui tool to personalize yubikeys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867396 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- yubikey-personalization-gui-3.1.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yubikey-personalization-gui-3.1.1-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867396] Review Request: yubikey-personalization-gui - A gui tool to personalize yubikeys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867396 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- yubikey-personalization-gui-3.1.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yubikey-personalization-gui-3.1.1-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867396] Review Request: yubikey-personalization-gui - A gui tool to personalize yubikeys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867396 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867396] Review Request: yubikey-personalization-gui - A gui tool to personalize yubikeys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867396 Maxim Burgerhout ma...@wzzrd.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-10-31 10:54:18 --- Comment #8 from Maxim Burgerhout ma...@wzzrd.com --- Built and submitted as update for F17, F18 and Rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 --- Comment #8 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- fixed manpage generation minor cleanups Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/sshuttle.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sshuttle-20121019-4.gitg9ce2fa0.fc17.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4643225 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871203] Review Request: console-bridge - Lightweight set of macros used for reporting information in libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871203 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dr...@land.ru --- Comment #1 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- weird path in console_bridge-config.cmake PATHS /usr//usr/lib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871203] Review Request: console-bridge - Lightweight set of macros used for reporting information in libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871203 --- Comment #2 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- I wonder. What for is need this file? If it is cmake module it should be places in /usr/share/cmake/Modules -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dr...@land.ru
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
Drop BR ocaml (ocaml-ocamldoc will pull it when building)
Ise %{?_isa} for devel subpackage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
static library must be in static subpackage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870978] Review Request: libcdio-paranoia - CD paranoia on top of libcdio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870978 --- Comment #2 from Frantisek Kluknavsky fkluk...@redhat.com --- Upstream versioning scheme is uncommon but acceptable: - observing past releases, we can expect linearity in the future. - the '+' character can be considered as a part of version tag, not as a (forbidden) delimiter. rpmlint: libcdio-paranoia.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cdparanoia - paranoiac, paranoia, paranoid libcdio-paranoia.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wav - av, wave, wavy libcdio-paranoia.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aifc - waif libcdio-paranoia.src: W: file-size-mismatch COPYING-LGPL = 26628, https://raw.github.com/rocky/libcdio-paranoia/master/COPYING-LGPL = 1 libcdio-paranoia.src: W: file-size-mismatch COPYING-GPL = 18153, https://raw.github.com/rocky/libcdio-paranoia/master/COPYING-GPL = 1 libcdio-paranoia.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cdparanoia - paranoiac, paranoia, paranoid libcdio-paranoia.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wav - av, wave, wavy libcdio-paranoia.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US aifc - waif All warnings were adressed in previous posts and are acceptable. Source code is a mix of GPLv2+, GPLv3+, LGPLv2. (Package can NOT be reasonably split, so this is acceptable.) Spec file and license fulltexts do not match! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828188] Review Request: reprepro - Debian package repository producer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828188 --- Comment #15 from Sebastien Caps sebastien.c...@guardis.com --- Based on new comments from Greg Swift I fix %ifs block. SPEC: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012103102/reprepro.spec SRPM: http://repo.virer.net/PackagesReviews/2012103102/reprepro-4.12.3-6.fc16.src.rpm F18 Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4643439 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846008] Review Request: dsqlite - DSQLite is a Hight level library for SQLite in D programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846008 --- Comment #12 from Christophe Burgun jo...@fedoraproject.org --- Yes this package is functional even without a D compiler once compiled this library is functional -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871339] Review Request: jmtpfs - FUSE and libmtp based file system for accessing MTP devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339 Siddharth Sharma sisha...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sisha...@redhat.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871898] New: Review Request: maven-plugins-pom - Maven Plugins POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871898 Bug ID: 871898 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: maven-plugins-pom - Maven Plugins POM Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/maven2-common-poms/maven-plugins-pom/maven-plugins-pom.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/maven2-common-poms/maven-plugins-pom/maven-plugins-pom-23-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This package provides Maven Plugins parent POM used by different Apache Maven plugins. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #14 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- thanks, ill put python3 builds on my todo list. gotta read the wiki pages first -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871898] Review Request: maven-plugins-pom - Maven Plugins POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871898 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||871893 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #15 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-llfuse Short Description: Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API Owners: maci Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871906] New: Review Request: plexus-components-pom - Plexus Components POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871906 Bug ID: 871906 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: plexus-components-pom - Plexus Components POM Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/maven2-common-poms/plexus-components-pom/plexus-components-1.2.pom SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/maven2-common-poms/plexus-components-pom/plexus-components-pom-1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This package provides Plexus Components parent POM used by different Plexus packages. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871906] Review Request: plexus-components-pom - Plexus Components POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871906 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||871893 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871906] Review Request: plexus-components-pom - Plexus Components POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871906 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||866756 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871909] New: Review Request: plexus-tools-pom - Plexus Tools POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871909 Bug ID: 871909 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: plexus-tools-pom - Plexus Tools POM Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/maven2-common-poms/plexus-tools-pom/plexus-tools-pom.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/maven2-common-poms/plexus-tools-pom/plexus-tools-pom-1.0.11-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This package provides Plexus Tools parent POM used by different Plexus packages. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871909] Review Request: plexus-tools-pom - Plexus Tools POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871909 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||871893, 866756 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871511] Review Request: heimdall - Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
--- Comment #5 from Juan Orti Alcaine j.orti.alca...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
No needed the macro %{?_isa} in subpackage frontend.
I think it's better to fully specify the required version, as stated in the
guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
I suggest contacting with the upstream to report the bug or once approved
the package, build and test in devel branch for a time
I'm testing 1.4rc1 and it has the same warnings, I'm going to open a 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 870522] Review Request: ocaml-zarith - OCaml interface to GMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870522
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the comments, Ivan.
(In reply to comment #1)
Drop BR ocaml (ocaml-ocamldoc will pull it when building)
It is redundant, true, but I prefer to keep that particular BR since this is an
ocaml package, so having an explicit BR on the package that provides the
compiler and runtime seems like a good thing to me.
Ise %{?_isa} for devel subpackage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Good catch. I have fixed this.
static library must be in static subpackage
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Except for the case of OCaml packages. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml, and the section entitled
-devel subpackage in particular.
New URLs:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zarith/ocaml-zarith-1.1-2.fc19.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 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 --- Comment #4 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- Update: Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/s3ql.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/s3ql-1.12-3.fc17.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4643936 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #9 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/openscad.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/openscad-2012.10.31-1.fc17.src.rpm - New version - Solved 2 MLCAD files license issues - Using full date version -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863796] Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863796 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/printrun.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/printrun-0.0-10.20120924gitb6935b93.fc17.src.rpm - Nothing has changed, I've just moved SRPM to a new location -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863793] Review Request: skeinforge - Converts 3D model into G-Code for RepRap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863793 --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/skeinforge.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/skeinforge-12.03.14-8.fc17.src.rpm - Nothing has changed, I've just moved SRPM to a new location -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xword-1.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870860] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok m...@hroncok.cz --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/opencsg.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/opencsg-1.3.2-5.fc17.src.rpm - Nothing has changed, I've just moved SRPM and SPEC to a new location -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Thanks for the review, Mario. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871604] Review Request: fedup - fedora upgrade tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871604 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- To save some time and allow for bugs to start being reported... New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedup Short Description: Fedora Upgrade tool Owners: wwoods 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 871605] Review Request: fedup-dracut - the Fedora Upgrade tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871605 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- To save some time and allow bugs to start being reported: New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedup-dracut Short Description: dracut modules for the Fedora upgrade tool Owners: wwoods 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 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675
--- Comment #22 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl ---
The past weeks I have worked on a new version of wcd. I released it on Monday
Oct 29. I added support for a $(sysconfdir) variable in the Makefile. So now
the installation uses %{_syscondir} from the spec file.
New spec file and source rpm:
Spec URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd.spec
SRPM URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd-5.2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
Now I continue with the packaging for Fedora.
best regards,
Erwin
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818458] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug19 - Command line interface (CLI) for ruby-debug-base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818458 --- Comment #12 from Toby Ovod-Everett t...@ovod-everett.org --- Sorry for the delay in testing. I just installed rubygem-ruby-debug19 from the testing repository along with all the dependencies (it picked up rubygem-ruby-debug-base19 from testing, rubygem-linecache19 from updates, and rubygem-columnize from fedora) and everything went smoothly. The debugger appears to work correctly (I uncommented the ruby-debug19 line in my Gemfile, bundle install found the machine version without any problem, and I was able to start rails with the debugger and successfully break into the debugger by inserting a debugger line into my source). Thank you all so much! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: horst Short Description: A highly optimized radio scanning tool Owners: fab 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 833226] Review Request: python-pycparser - C parser and AST generator written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833226 Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|josdek...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com --- Mario, thanks for your advice. I have assigned it, and will try to complete the review after the last small issue in the spec file has been resolved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870323] Review Request: glogg - Smart interactive log explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870323 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glogg-0.8.3-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glogg-0.8.3-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870323] Review Request: glogg - Smart interactive log explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870323 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glogg-0.8.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glogg-0.8.3-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870323] Review Request: glogg - Smart interactive log explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870323 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Please post direct links to SRPM and spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sucrack Short Description: A su cracker Owners: fab 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 868939] Review Request: python-llfuse - Python Bindings for the low-level FUSE API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868939 Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- It BRs kdelibs-devel (BTW, better use kdelibs4-devel) and kde-runtime-devel, so it's not a pure Qt library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737401] Review Request: saga - Geographic information system with an API for processing geodata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737401 --- Comment #24 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- http://www.geofrogger.net/review/saga.spec http://www.geofrogger.net/review/saga-2.0.8-5.fc16.src.rpm 1 through 5 addressed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- After reading through the license header again, Kevin Kofler explained to me, that the license must be LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 and to add a comment saying that newer versions approved by KDE e.V. are allowed. If you want to place the cmake file in %datadir/cmake, you must require cmake for the devel sub-package. Please use KDE macros, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Packaging/BestPractices for reference (ignore the anachronisms). Please ask upstream to include a license file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
