[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Stalled Submitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #16 from Brendan Jones --- Hi, can I get an update on this please? 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 861923] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861923 Lakshmi Narasimhan 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 861923] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861923 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@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 821285] Review Request: rubygem-bunny - A synchronous Ruby AMQP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821285 Julian C. Dunn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jd...@aquezada.com --- Comment #2 from Julian C. Dunn --- Since there's been no word from Jonas since the summer, I'm starting to take over the work on these packages. I have a new spec and SRPM for rubygem-bunny: http://jdunn.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-bunny/rubygem-bunny.spec http://jdunn.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-bunny/rubygem-bunny-0.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm I'm prepared to undeprecate the existing Fedora package, as well as maintain this one for EPEL6. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829116] Review Request: ninja-build - A small build system with a focus on speed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ninja-build-1.0.0-1.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 829116] Review Request: ninja-build - A small build system with a focus on speed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ninja-build-1.0.0-1.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 829116] Review Request: ninja-build - A small build system with a focus on speed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829116] Review Request: ninja-build - A small build system with a focus on speed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ninja-build-1.0.0-1.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 818457] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug-base19 - Fast Ruby debugger - core component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818457 Mamoru TASAKA 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 818458] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug19 - Command line interface (CLI) for ruby-debug-base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818458 Mamoru TASAKA 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 841483] Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 --- Comment #20 from Fl@sh --- Minh Ngo fyi, http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2012-August/011826.html (but this not displayed in instructions). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841483] Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 --- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter --- that is not applicable 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 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- s3ql-1.12-7.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 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.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 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #8 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Hi Brendan I know that the library is private, but if are in LDPATH , practically, it is not... Filtering has limitations: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Usage that says: "Architecture specific packages with no binaries in $PATH (e.g. /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /sbin) or libexecdir and no system libs in libdir. This includes all of the subpackages generated from the spec file. " So that leaves us with the 3rd point -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872966] Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966 --- Comment #7 from Minh Ngo --- SRPM: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/4ypsiwdga6vlfwu/spacefm-0.8.2-3.fc17.src.rpm?dl=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 872966] Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to comment #2) > Upd. > Spec: > https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/ > 1a6861ceade0010a842e66bbaf7841b269c87f56/spacefm/spacefm.spec > > For building a new SRPM archive, please use this script > https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/ > 1a6861ceade0010a842e66bbaf7841b269c87f56/spacefm/BUILD.sh (place it in the > same directory as the spacefm.spec Please provide clickable links to download your files directly. I don't want to create a srpm this way. Reviewers need real files, not instructions to create 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 872966] Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966 --- Comment #5 from Minh Ngo --- Fixed Spec: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/bceaa135d65ef1a5716e3aa7849556b1e22c0172/spacefm/spacefm.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 872966] Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966
--- Comment #4 from Minh Ngo ---
>Take advantage of macros, especially in Source0, to make future updates of
>your package easier:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
it's easier for future updates but not easier for future URL copy-pasting for
downloading a source archive :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872966] Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966
--- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity ---
You can also drop xz from the BuildRequires, it's already part of the minimal
build dependencies.
You could enable startup-notification support by adding
startup-notification-devel to the BuildRequires.
License is incorrect, there is no dual-licensing: spacefm source code is GPLv2+
but contains parts licensed under LGPLv2+. License tag should be:
# spacefm exo module is LGPLv2+
License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
Take advantage of macros, especially in Source0, to make future updates of your
package easier:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841483] Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 Minh Ngo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nlmin...@gmail.com --- Comment #18 from Minh Ngo --- use desktop-file-validate (from desktop-file-utils package) for validating desktop 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 872966] Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966 --- Comment #2 from Minh Ngo --- Upd. Spec: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/1a6861ceade0010a842e66bbaf7841b269c87f56/spacefm/spacefm.spec For building a new SRPM archive, please use this script https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/1a6861ceade0010a842e66bbaf7841b269c87f56/spacefm/BUILD.sh (place it in the same directory as the spacefm.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 872771] Review Request: qextserialport - Qt interface class for old fashioned serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872771 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||872971 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836821] Review Request: libcec - Library for HDMI-CEC device control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836821
--- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson ---
> Is the license of ADL compatible with GPLv2?
Where's ADL?
> I think you should BR libudev-devel. systemd-devel doesn't seem to be
> necessary though.
udev is now part of systemd and the libudev-devel is provided by systemd-devel
On a F-18 system do "repoquery --whatprovides libudev-devel"
> The sentences in %description should have periods, as they are proper
> sentences.
Fixed
> There's a Windoze executable that should be removed in the %prep section:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-
> built_binaries_or_libraries
Fixed
> The files section could be more specific:
>
> %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.* or at least libcec.so.*. Stating the exact name of
> the two executables in bindir also wouldn't hurt.
Done
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3
> files
> have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/836821-libcec/licensecheck.txt
>
> Dual licensed commercially and GPLv2+.
>
> The license must be "GPLv2+" -- not "GPLv2"!
Updated
> [!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> Doesn't need one, I think.
What systemd files. There's none there.
> [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
> Note: %define tarfile %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
>
> That macro is unused and name isn't defined at that point in time anyway.
> Please delete or correct!
Fixed.
> libcec.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/cec-config
> I think this is bogus
Yes, it is.
> libcec.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libcec-1.9.0/COPYING
> Please contact upstream!
Already have.
> That's not a tragedy. On the other hand, the macros don't serve a purpose
> there.
They serve as documentation
> libcec.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1)
> Please solve!
Fixed.
SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libcec-1.9.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092
--- Comment #17 from Antonio Trande ---
I have used
...
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -o -type l| \
sed '
s:'"$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"'::
s:\(.*%{_datadir}/locale/\)\([^/_]\+\)\(.*\.mo$\):%lang(\2)
\1\2\3:
s:^\([^%].*\)::
/^$/d' > %{name}.lang
%find_lang %{name}
...
but I obtain
...
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
+ sed '
s:/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64::
s:\(.*/usr/share/locale/\)\([^/_]\+\)\(.*\.mo$\):%lang(\2)
\1\2\3:
s:^\([^%].*\)::
/^$/d'
+ find /home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/updf-0.0.2.4-1.fc17.x86_64 -type f -o
-type l
+ /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.TM38Ny (%install)
Where is my error ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.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 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859713] Review Request: php-cloudfiles - PHP API for the Cloud Files storage system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859713 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-cloudfiles-1.7.11-2.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 872966] Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann ---
%{_datadir}/applications/spacefm-find.desktop
%{_datadir}/applications/spacefm-folder-handler.desktop
You need at least desktop-file-validate to install these files. Add
desktop-file-utils to BuildRequires.
Because the files contain a MimeType key and add a new MIME type anyway, you
must add some scriptlets:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo
Drop gettext from BuildRequires, it's a recursive dependency of intltool.
%setup -qn %{name}-%{version}
The %{name}-%{version} macro is unneeded, it's the default.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872966] New: Review Request: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872966 Bug ID: 872966 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: spacefm - SpaceFM file manager Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: nlmin...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/39aebc61f68246267bd45368f6754076eb30ba66/spacefm/spacefm.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/ektpydeahssv58b/spacefm-0.8.2-1.fc17.src.rpm?dl=1 Description: SpaceFM is a multi-panel tabbed file manager for Linux with built-in VFS, udev-based device manager, customizable menu system, and bash integration. Fedora Account System Username: minh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] New: Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Bug ID: 872958 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/opusfile.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/opusfile-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm %description libopusfile provides a high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files. It includes: * Support for all files with at least one Opus stream (including multichannel files or Ogg files where Opus is muxed with something else). * Full support, including seeking, for chained files. * A simple stereo downmixing API (allowing chained files to be decoded with a single output format, even if the channel count changes). * Support for reading from a file, memory buffer, or over HTTP(S) (including seeking). * Support for both random access and streaming data sources. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4654003 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872957] New: Review Request: php-pear-XML-SVG - API for building SVG documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872957 Bug ID: 872957 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: php-pear-XML-SVG - API for building SVG documents Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php/pear/php-pear-XML-SVG/php-pear-XML-SVG.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pear-XML-SVG-1.1.0-1.remi.src.rpm Description: This package provides an object-oriented API for building SVG documents. Fedora Account System Username: remi Target: Fedora >= 17 and EPEL >= 5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827649] Review Request: supercat - colorized cat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827649 --- Comment #20 from Adrian Alves --- Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat-0.5.5-5.fc16.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 867959] Review Request: libgit2 - C library for git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867959 --- Comment #4 from Veeti Paananen --- Hi, Sorry for the late response. The libxdiff bundling seems to be somewhat complicated because the libgit2 developers tell me [1] that their copy of xdiff comes from git's source code [2] and not from libxdiff. Fedora's git package doesn't seem to have any exception for this "bundling". How do I proceed from here? I've written a patch to use to the system's instance of http-parser and I'll post an updated spec once this is clear. [1] https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/pull/1005 [2] https://github.com/git/git/tree/master/xdiff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860542] Review Request: kchildlock - KDE Parental Control Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860542 --- Comment #3 from Minh Ngo --- Fixing bugs: Spec: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/33cbc014fce805877e2f43f767ba4201e5543c9a/kchildlock/kchildlock.spec SRPM: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/u20m910hwizh7cr/kchildlock-0.90.4.2-2.fc17.src.rpm?dl=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 872783] Review Request: Ray - Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872783 --- Comment #13 from Sébastien Boisvert --- Spec URL: http://github.com/sebhtml/ray-packaging-for-Fedora/raw/2.1.0-3/Ray.spec SRPM URL: http://github.com/sebhtml/ray-packaging-for-Fedora/raw/2.1.0-3/Ray-2.1.0-3.fc17.src.rpm * Fri Nov 4 2012 Sébastien Boisvert - 2.1.0-3 - Changed the package name from ray to Ray - Renamed README.md to README - Added AUTHORS, README.RayPlatform, AUTHORS.RayPlatform > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > NEEDSWORK Fixed > - .. but change the name of the spec file too when you change the name. Fixed > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK > - The docs are just 40kB, so you could also just drop the -doc package and > include the documentation in -common. I prefer the -doc because: "Large can refer to either size or quantity" -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ReviewGuidelines > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. NEEDSWORK > - Add AUTHORS to %doc in -common. Fixed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 856002] Review Request: plug - Linux software for Fender Mustang amplifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856002 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Underwood --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: plug Short Description: Linux replacement for Fender FUSE software for Mustang amps Owners: jgu 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 856002] Review Request: plug - Linux software for Fender Mustang amplifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856002 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Underwood --- Thanks for taking the time to 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 871216] Review Request: Tupi Open 2D Magic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich --- You need to install a desktop file, since this is a graphical application: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_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 872771] Review Request: qextserialport - Qt interface class for old fashioned serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872771 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qextserialport Short Description: Qt interface class for old fashioned serial ports Owners: volter 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 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- s3ql-1.12-7.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/s3ql-1.12-7.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 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- s3ql-1.12-7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/s3ql-1.12-7.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 868940] Review Request: s3ql - Full-Featured File System for Online Data Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868940 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872771] Review Request: qextserialport - Qt interface class for old fashioned serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872771 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák --- all issues are fixed now, 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 819919] Review Request: chicken-scheme - CHICKEN is a compiler for the Scheme programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819919 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas --- Still intested of bringing chicken into Fedora? If so, I can make the review. Just let me know... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872771] Review Request: qextserialport - Qt interface class for old fashioned serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872771 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich --- Argh, those were stupid mistakes! Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/qextserialport.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/qextserialport-1.2-0.2.beta2.fc16.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 872771] Review Request: qextserialport - Qt interface class for old fashioned serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872771
--- Comment #4 from Dan Horák ---
formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
BAD source files match upstream:
cc9e91f6e1bec987616066902fbf532937b120e5
qextserialport-1.2beta2.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible (MIT). License text included in
package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK rpmlint is silent.
BAD final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK correct scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK headers in devel subpackage
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
- please use the whole URL for the source archive -
http://qextserialport.googlecode.com/files/qextserialport-1.2beta2.tar.gz works
here, otherwise a comment is needed
- the devel subpackage should depend on qt4-devel, because
%{_qt4_datadir}/mkspecs/features/
would be unwned otherwise, also it's unusable without qt4-devel
- I prefer trailing slash when whole directory should be included =>
%{_includedir}/QtExtSerialPort/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 --- Comment #19 from Gregor Tätzner --- (In reply to comment #17) > A patch is not suitable to delete unacceptably-licensed code, you should > repackage the tarball to get rid of it entirely. Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/owncloud.spec SRPM URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/owncloud-4.0.8-4.fc17.src.rpm (In reply to comment #18) > So, one issue is that the bundled old version of the ace editor bundles > JSHint into the same file as the rest of the JavaScript worker. In the > current upstream code, it is a separate file, which would be much easier to > get rid of without removing other functionality (rm the file from the > tarball, then apply a patch to remove its uses). Are you suggesting to replace the bundled aceeditor with the current upstream one? Another issue is that I can't patch the compressed js files without recompressing them from the uncompressed files. Unless there is an js compression tool in fedora that I don't know of. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869157] Review Request: mate-utils - MATE utility programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869157 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from leigh scott --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mate-utils Short Description: MATE utility programs Owners: leigh123linux rdieter vicodan 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 872771] Review Request: qextserialport - Qt interface class for old fashioned serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872771 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@danny.cz 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 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones --- See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#invalid-soname (3rd and 4th point) I will filter the lib from the Provides also. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872783] Review Request: Ray - Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872783
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola ---
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
ray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
ray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novo -> nova, Nov
ray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metagenomes -> meta genomes,
meta-genomes, genomes
ray-common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
ray-common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novo -> nova, Nov
ray-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
ray-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novo -> nova, Nov
ray-extra.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
ray-extra.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novo -> nova, Nov
ray-extra.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ray-mpich2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
ray-mpich2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novo -> nova, Nov
ray-mpich2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ray-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
ray-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novo -> nova, Nov
ray-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
NEEDSWORK
- Since there is clearly a preference for upper case naming, the package should
be named Ray instead of ray.
* The project name is spelled in upper case
* The tarball name is in upper case
* The source directory in the tarball is in upper case
* The binary is in upper case
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
- .. but change the name of the spec file too when you change the name.
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
- licensecheck reveals GPL and LGPL files, but it doesn't detect any
versioning.
- manual inspection reveals GPLv3 and LGPLv3, meaning that the license tag
GPLv3 is correct.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
$ sha1sum Ray-v2.1.0.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/Ray-v2.1.0.tar.bz2
4c09f2731445852857af53b65aa47e444792eeb0 Ray-v2.1.0.tar.bz2
4c09f2731445852857af53b65aa47e444792eeb0 ../SOURCES/Ray-v2.1.0.tar.bz2
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
- The docs are just 40kB, so you could also just drop the -doc package and
include the documentation in -common.
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add AUTHORS to %doc in -common.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned, architecture dependent dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
EPEL5: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL5: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL5: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailin
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones --- I disagree - this is a private library and should not be in LDPATH. I can notify upstream, to move the location of the library. I will update the SPEC to use desktop-file-install 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 869157] Review Request: mate-utils - MATE utility programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869157 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Dan Mashal --- APPROVED. Please do the following 2 things before import: 1) Do whatever needs to be done for a successful rawhide build. 2) Address: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 13772800 bytes in /usr/share 102400 mate-utils-mate-system-log-1.4.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm 13670400 mate- utils-1.4.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm Thanks, Dan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869157] Review Request: mate-utils - MATE utility programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869157
--- Comment #4 from Dan Mashal ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
mate-system-log, %package devel
[ ]: 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:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
"GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/dan/869157-mate-utils/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 174080 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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 u
[Bug 826685] Review Request: lcab - A Cabinet File Creation Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826685
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter ---
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)
[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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: 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/fab/reviews/826685-lcab/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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (lcab-1.0b12.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package s
[Bug 869157] Review Request: mate-utils - MATE utility programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869157 --- Comment #3 from leigh scott --- Note srpm doesn't build on F19 due to declared BR version BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libmatepanelapplet-2.0) Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-utils/2/mate-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-utils/2/mate-utils-1.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872783] Review Request: Ray - Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872783 --- Comment #11 from Sébastien Boisvert --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/sebhtml/ray-packaging-for-Fedora/for-review/ray-2.1.0-2/2.1.0/ray.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/sebhtml/ray-packaging-for-Fedora/for-review/ray-2.1.0-2/2.1.0/ray-2.1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing Fedora Account System Username: sebhtml The package now builds in mock: $ mock -r fedora-17-x86_64 rebuild ray-2.1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm &> ray-2.1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm.mock $ tail -n1 ray-2.1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm.mock Finish: run * Fri Nov 4 2012 Sébastien Boisvert - 2.1.0-2 - Added build dependency help2man - Added OMPI_MCA_orte_rsh_agent to pass mock builds > The package does not build in mock. You're missing BuildRequires: help2man. Fixed. > And even after that I get > > + help2man --no-info -n 'assemble genomes in parallel using the > message-passing interface' /builddir/build/BUILD/Ray-v2.1.0/Ray > help2man: can't get `--help' info from /builddir/build/BUILD/Ray-v2.1.0/Ray > Try `--no-discard-stderr' if option outputs to stderr Fixed by adding export OMPI_MCA_orte_rsh_agent=/bin/false before calling help2man I started reviewing submissions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sebhtml#Finding_a_sponsor For this "SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.", here are two system tests if you want to try Ray. # Test 1 module load openmpi-x86_64 mpiexec -n 32 Ray$MPI_SUFFIX -o test \ -test-network-only module unload openmpi-x86_64 # Test 2 wget ftp://ftp.ddbj.nig.ac.jp/ddbj_database/dra/fastq/SRA001/SRA001125/SRX000429/SRR001665_1.fastq.bz2 wget ftp://ftp.ddbj.nig.ac.jp/ddbj_database/dra/fastq/SRA001/SRA001125/SRX000429/SRR001665_2.fastq.bz2 wget ftp://ftp.ddbj.nig.ac.jp/ddbj_database/dra/fastq/SRA001/SRA001125/SRX000430/SRR001666_1.fastq.bz2 wget ftp://ftp.ddbj.nig.ac.jp/ddbj_database/dra/fastq/SRA001/SRA001125/SRX000430/SRR001666_2.fastq.bz2 module load openmpi-x86_64 mpiexec -n 32 Ray$MPI_SUFFIX -k 23 -o Ecoli \ -p SRR001665_1.fastq.bz2 SRR001665_2.fastq.bz2 \ -p SRR001666_1.fastq.bz2 SRR001666_1.fastq.bz2 module unload openmpi-x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Sorry for delay Brendan, Although move the library outside the LDPATH is correct, is no correct link this in the LDPATH, Why? If you run objdump -p libalsapid.so | grep SONAME there no out Although not detected by rpmlint remains a blocker review, Please contact with upstream for resolve this and give a correct soname to library or patching to search outside of the LDPATH. Other comments: Please use desktop-file-install for install gladish.desktop 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 827649] Review Request: supercat - colorized cat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827649 --- Comment #19 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to comment #17) > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT As mentioned in Comment #16, the Buildroot is cleaned automatically on recent Fedora releases. (In reply to comment #16) > supercat.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/spc.1.gz 112: > warning: macro `r':reverse' not defined > supercat.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/spc.1.gz 123: > warning: macro `r':RE.' not defined A patch to fix this is available for the Debian package [1]. [1] http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/supercat/0.5.5-4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872783] Review Request: Ray - Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872783 --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola --- Please increment the Release every time you make changes to the spec file, also during the review! Otherwise it's very hard to follow reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825409] Review Request: gazebo - 3D multi-robot simulator with dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825409
Sébastien Boisvert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@boisvert.info
--- Comment #4 from Sébastien Boisvert ---
This is an informal review as I am not sponsored yet.
> Patch0: %{name}-1.2.2-fedora.patch
> Patch1: %{name}-1.0.1-playerdir.patch
> BuildRequires: boost-devel
> BuildRequires: cegui-devel
Add a new line between the Patch1 line and the first BuildRequires line.
> %description devel
> The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for
> developing applications that use %{name}
Add a '.' at the end of the description.
> %package playerplugin
Maybe name that player-plugin ?
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
You must stick to macros.
Use %{buildroot}. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> %global abiversion 1.2
How tightly coupled is the ABI version to the upstream version ?
> Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gazebo/gazebo.spec
$ rpmlint -i gazebo.spec
gazebo.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{name}-1.0.1-playerdir.patch
A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches
documentation to see what's wrong.
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> SRPM URL:
> http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gazebo/gazebo-1.2.5-1.fc17.src.rpm
I can not find some dependencies. Are they under review ? If so, can you
provide the buzilla entries ? Or are they in rpmfusion ?
$ pwd
/home/seb/rpmbuild/SPECS
$ rpmbuild -ba gazebo.spec
error: Failed build dependencies:
console-bridge-devel is needed by gazebo-1.2.5-1.fc17.x86_64
libccd-devel is needed by gazebo-1.2.5-1.fc17.x86_64
urdfdom-headers-devel is needed by gazebo-1.2.5-1.fc17.x86_64
urdfdom-devel is needed by gazebo-1.2.5-1.fc17.x86_64
[root@panic SPECS]# yum install -y console-bridge-devel libccd-devel
urdfdom-headers-devel urdfdom-devel
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
No package console-bridge-devel available.
No package libccd-devel available.
No package urdfdom-headers-devel available.
No package urdfdom-devel available.
Error: Nothing to do
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872909] Review Request: rubygem-test-unit-rr - Test::Unit::RR - RR adapter for Test::Unit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872909 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Hello: (In reply to comment #2) > This is an informal review as I am not sponsored yet. > > # https://github.com/test-unit/test-unit-rr/issues/1 > > This can be removed as upstream indicated LGPLv2+ at > https://github.com/test-unit/test-unit-rr/issues/1 So I explicitly wrote the URL above to clarify the license because the upstream clarified the license on the above URL. > > %description > > Test::Unit::RR - RR adapter for Test::Unit. > > I think the description should be longer and should contain less programming > wording. For instance, I don't know what is an RR adapter. I think using what is written on the metadata directly is less confusiong. > > # No test suite available currently > > There should be a %check before that line as this comment is related to the > %check section. Writing %check will create %check section unneededly so I don't want to write it for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872783] Review Request: Ray - Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872783 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola --- The package does not build in mock. You're missing BuildRequires: help2man. And even after that I get + help2man --no-info -n 'assemble genomes in parallel using the message-passing interface' /builddir/build/BUILD/Ray-v2.1.0/Ray help2man: can't get `--help' info from /builddir/build/BUILD/Ray-v2.1.0/Ray Try `--no-discard-stderr' if option outputs to stderr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760177] Review Request: knot - Authoritative DNS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177 --- Comment #32 from Marek Vavrusa --- Just regarding the MSG_WAITFORONE issue. It seems like the recvmmsg was backported from 2.6.33 but the patch for MSG_WAITFORONE from 2.6.34 not, so that could be the problem. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=71c5c1595c04852d6fbf3c4882b47b30b61a4d32 So a kernel >= 2.6.34 or with the patches backported should work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
