[Bug 876865] Review Request: Brewtarget - beer recipe tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876865
--- Comment #4 from Pete Travis ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Some more:
>
> * use %{version} in source url
This seems a bit excessive. It would break validation tools, and require users
trying to download the source tarball to manually substitute in the version
number.
> * ctest don't seems to do anything useful, remove
Following http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake here. I'm not familiar
with cmake, so I'll take your word for it, thanks. Removed empty %clean
section.
> * no need for %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} in %files
Fixed.
> * app seems to ship mp3 files, that might be a problem
I agree it isn't ideal, but several other packages are shipping mp3 files. I
can test to verify the application functions if there is no decoder.
Thanks for your comments, Terje!
I also corrected the following issues:
- Included two license documents in %doc that were shipped from upstream,
- disposed of the superfluous `rm -rf %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/*` in
%install, this was leftover from before the related patch.
Updated files are:
SPEC: http://randomuser.org/brewtarget/brewtarget.spec
SRPM: http://randomuser.org/brewtarget/brewtarget-1.2.5-2.fc17.src.rpm
Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4697931
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876645] Review Request: python-fixtures - Fixtures, reusable state for writing clean tests and more
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876645 Pádraig Brady changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Pádraig Brady --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-fixtures Short Description: Fixtures, reusable state for writing clean tests and more Owners: pbrady 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 852185] Review Request: nfacct - Command line tool to create/retrieve/delete accounting objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852185 Xose Vazquez Perez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Xose Vazquez Perez --- 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 848990] Review Request: libnetfilter_acct - A library providing interface to extended accounting infrastructure
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848990 Xose Vazquez Perez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xose.vazq...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Xose Vazquez Perez --- 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 --- Comment #26 from Hans de Goede --- Ok, good news, we've gotten an exception for tidy from the fpc, so here is a new version: Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/sigil.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/sigil-0.6.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Never mind the .fc15 I'm using the pre-git erra makefiles to build not yet imported rpms... This is based on the srpm from comment #23. It is exactly the same except for the release field in the latest changelog entry being fixed :) Dan, I would like to suggest that I keep the submitter role and you the reviewer role for the rest of this review, and then after the review we co-maintain ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362
--- Comment #27 from LightDot ---
Great news!
Ok, I can spot a small packaging issue - sigil has a .desktop file so this
applies:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
Basically, there must be "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" and if the
.desktop file isn't modified during the install, something along the lines of
"desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop" in
the check or install section.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842199] Review Request: php-Monolog - Logging for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842199 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Created attachment 646835 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=646835&action=edit php-Monolog-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 842199 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842199] Review Request: php-Monolog - Logging for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842199 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet --- All seems ok. === 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 866428] Review Request: php-theseer-fDOMDocument - An Extension to PHP standard DOM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866428 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866428] Review Request: php-theseer-fDOMDocument - An Extension to PHP standard DOM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866428 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 646836 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=646836&action=edit php-theseer-fDOMDocument-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 866428 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866428] Review Request: php-theseer-fDOMDocument - An Extension to PHP standard DOM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866428 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- === 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 866428] Review Request: php-theseer-fDOMDocument - An Extension to PHP standard DOM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866428 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-theseer-fDOMDocument Short Description: An Extension to PHP standard DOM Owners: remi 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 842199] Review Request: php-Monolog - Logging for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842199 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Shawn Iwinski --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-Monolog Short Description: Logging for PHP 5.3 Owners: siwinski 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 866463] Review Request: php-phpunit-FinderFacade - Wrapper for Symfony's Finder component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866463 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860249] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249
Pete Travis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@petetravis.com
--- Comment #24 from Pete Travis ---
Hey Tobias,
I have a couple informal comments to offer:
The package and spec file pass rpmlint, and the font looks great!
I don't see where I can download Source1, %{name}-fontconfig.conf . Is this
publicly available?
You have `rm -fr %{buildroot}` in both %install and %clean. You shouldn't have
to do this in either section.
You are missing a %files section. The package should claim ownership of every
file it installs here. By convention, %doc should also be in this section.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866463] Review Request: php-phpunit-FinderFacade - Wrapper for Symfony's Finder component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866463 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 646837 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=646837&action=edit php-phpunit-FinderFacade-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 866463 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823051] Review Request: php-symfony2-Finder - Symfony2 Finder Component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823051 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||866463 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866463] Review Request: php-phpunit-FinderFacade - Wrapper for Symfony's Finder component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866463 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||823051 Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- === 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 859271] Review Request: php-symfony2-OptionsResolver - Symfony2 OptionsResolver Component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859271 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-11-17 11:58:03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823071] Review Request: php-symfony2-Form - Symfony2 Form Component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823071 Bug 823071 depends on bug 859271, which changed state. Bug 859271 Summary: Review Request: php-symfony2-OptionsResolver - Symfony2 OptionsResolver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859271 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859270] Review Request: php-symfony2-Filesystem - Symfony2 Filesystem Component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859270 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-11-17 11:58:57 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866463] Review Request: php-phpunit-FinderFacade - Wrapper for Symfony's Finder component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866463 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-phpunit-FinderFacade Short Description: Wrapper for Symfony's Finder component Owners: remi 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 877651] New: Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651 Bug ID: 877651 Summary: Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com Type: --- Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath/SRPMS/sagemath-5.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Sage is a free open-source mathematics software system licensed under the GPL. It combines the power of many existing open-source packages into a common Python-based interface. Fedora Account System Username: pcpa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859994] Review Request: rubygem-simple_form - Flexible and powerful components to create forms
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859994 Pete Travis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@petetravis.com --- Comment #12 from Pete Travis --- I see this package made it to the repo, but the bug here is still blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Imre, assuming you have a sponsor, can you clean up the tracker bug by removing the block? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860249] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #25 from Jussi Lehtola ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> You have `rm -fr %{buildroot}` in both %install and %clean. You shouldn't
> have to do this in either section.
Although this is done automatically by newer versions of RPM, it's in no sense
wrong to do it.
> You are missing a %files section. The package should claim ownership of
> every file it installs here. By convention, %doc should also be in this
> section.
Nope, doesn't apply to fonts. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template
The %files section is already provided by the %_font_pkg macro.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876865] Review Request: Brewtarget - beer recipe tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876865
--- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten ---
Thanks for updates!
Some more:
rpmlint issues:
brewtarget.x86_64: W: invalid-license WTFPLv2
brewtarget.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1
According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List
the correct short names are LGPLv2+ and WTFPL
brewtarget.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary brewtarget
There is in fact a man page available in
brewtarget-1.2.5/doc/brewtarget.1
Add that by doing e.g. in %install
install -D 0644 doc/brewtarget.1 ${buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/brewtarget.1
and
%{_mandir}/man1/brewtarget.1*
in %files.
Pedantic space and empty lines hang ups:
- no empty lines before %description
- remove leading space in make %{?_smp_mflags} line
- just a single empty line before %install and %changelog
- one empty line between each item in %changelog
BTW: the reason for %{version} in source0 is to avoid trouble when
updating version and forgetting to update source0, you only need it the
filename, not in the url.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877167] Review Request: mate-icon-theme-faenza - MATE Desktop faenza compilation theme
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877167
--- Comment #6 from Nelson Marques ---
Leigh, seems OK to me, good job. Just remove the BuildRequires:
hicolor-icon-theme since it's not needed at all in Fedora and I'm cool with it.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find gnome-mime-text-x-copying.png in rpm(s)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 4034560 bytes in 3 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find gnome-mime-text-x-copying.png in rpm(s)
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/nmarques/877167-mate-icon-theme-
faenza/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 4034560 bytes in 3 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)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version
[Bug 877167] Review Request: mate-icon-theme-faenza - MATE Desktop faenza compilation theme
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877167
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
--- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter ---
I'd strongly suggest renaming this package to match the actual theme name, and
use:
Name: matefaenza-icon-theme
instead.
And, to appease folks who expect the upstream name, be sure to include the
string "mate-icon-theme-faenza" somewhere in pkg %description, and add
Provides: mate-icon-theme-faenza = %{version}-%{release}
and possibly even
Obsoletes: mate-icon-theme-faenza < %{version}-%{release}
if there's any risk or possibility of upgrade path issues from users who have
the old name installed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877167] Review Request: mate-icon-theme-faenza - MATE Desktop faenza compilation theme
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877167 --- Comment #8 from Nelson Marques --- This package hasn't entered testing or production, so we should have zero clients with it installed besides the people who are participating in the review, skipping the Obsoletes is safe in my opinion. Sounds reasonable, gonna submit the changes to Leigh and restart the process. 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 877661] New: Review Request: seam-conversation - Conversation management logic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877661 Bug ID: 877661 Summary: Review Request: seam-conversation - Conversation management logic Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/seam-conversation.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This is where different CDI impls should abstract its conversation management logic until that is part of the CDI spec. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830270] Review Request: python-hgdistver - Python library to generate package version info from mercurial tags
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830270
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4698431
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking
python-hgdistver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mercurial's ->
mercurial, commercial's
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/anyvc
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/hgdistver/hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.noarch: I: checking
python-hgdistver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mercurial's ->
mercurial, commercial's
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/anyvc
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/hgdistver/hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Some ignorable spelling errors.
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking
python-hgdistver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mercurial's ->
mercurial, commercial's
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/anyvc
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/hgdistver/hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.noarch: I: checking
python-hgdistver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mercurial's ->
mercurial, commercial's
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-hgdistver.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/anyvc
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-hgdistver.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/hgdistver/hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Nothing of interest.
-
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.
MIT
[.] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
8fe74a757e7a45960c393b16f0f73a8b39d20fec6045a8571e21e7dc65a88202
hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz
8fe74a757e7a45960c393b16f0f73a8b39d20fec6045a8571e21e7dc65a88202
hgdistver-0.16.tar.gz.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
th
[Bug 877661] Review Request: seam-conversation - Conversation management logic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877661 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4698491 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877661] Review Request: seam-conversation - Conversation management logic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877661 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876865] Review Request: Brewtarget - beer recipe tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876865
--- Comment #6 from Pete Travis ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks for updates!
>
> Some more:
>
> rpmlint issues:
>
> brewtarget.x86_64: W: invalid-license WTFPLv2
> brewtarget.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1
>
> According to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:
> Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List
> the correct short names are LGPLv2+ and WTFPL
Corrected. After reading through a few licensing pages, I have a better
understanding of the requirement here - the shortnames are more generalized
than I thought.
> brewtarget.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary brewtarget
>
> There is in fact a man page available in
>
> brewtarget-1.2.5/doc/brewtarget.1
>
> Add that by doing e.g. in %install
>
> install -D 0644 doc/brewtarget.1 ${buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/brewtarget.1
Good point, thanks for that.
> %{_mandir}/man1/brewtarget.1*
>
> in %files.
Done. I assume the wildcard is to accommodate future, additional manpages, so
why not '%{_mandir}/man*/brewtarget*' ?
> Pedantic space and empty lines hang ups:
>
> - no empty lines before %description
> - remove leading space in make %{?_smp_mflags} line
> - just a single empty line before %install and %changelog
> - one empty line between each item in %changelog
Done.
> BTW: the reason for %{version} in source0 is to avoid trouble when
> updating version and forgetting to update source0, you only need it the
> filename, not in the url.
I've been reading through reviews and doing some mock ones of my own - I see
this convention is standard and I've corrected my URL accordingly.
Thanks again, Terje. I really appreciate the help.
Updated URLS:
SPEC: http://randomuser.org/brewtarget/brewtarget.spec
SRPM: http://randomuser.org/brewtarget/brewtarget-1.2.5-3.fc17.src.rpm
KOJI: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4698972
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876865] Review Request: Brewtarget - beer recipe tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876865 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi --- I'll be happy to review this and look at sponsoring you... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877167] Review Request: matefaenza-icon-theme - MATE Desktop faenza compilation theme
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877167 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mate-icon-theme-faenza -|matefaenza-icon-theme - |MATE Desktop faenza |MATE Desktop faenza |compilation theme |compilation theme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875359] Review Request: willie - a simple, lightweight, open source, easy-to-use IRC Utility bot, written in Python.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875359 --- Comment #3 from Elad Alfassa --- Issues fixed. Spec URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/willie/willie.spec SRPM URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/willie/willie-3.1-3.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877167] Review Request: matefaenza-icon-theme - MATE Desktop faenza compilation theme
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877167 --- Comment #9 from leigh scott --- Here we go :-) Spec URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-icon-theme-faenza/2/matefaenza-icon-theme.spec SRPM URL: http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/mate-icon-theme-faenza/2/matefaenza-icon-theme-1.5.0-2.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 870184] Review Request: drumkv1 - an old-school digital drumkit sampler
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Volker Fröhlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4699000 -- Rawhide build
There's no reason for a version constraint on lv2. No maintained release of
Fedora has an older version than 1.0.0.
I was wrong about the hidden files in the debugging package. They are vital to
debugging and it's a habit of Qmake to hide them. Please don't delete them.
Please report the issue of wrong permissions of the .so upstream.
I assume, the lv2 plug-in doesn't require the base package.
Please see the review below for further details.
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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Plug-in library in a sub-directory
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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.
ppc64 build fails:
http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=789144&name=build.log
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n
lv2-%{name}
See comment at the top!
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/870184-drumkv1/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Please add COPYING to the lv2 sub-package!
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spe
[Bug 875506] Review Request: python-fdb - Firebird RDBMS bindings for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875506 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to comment #6) > sorry, what version of rpmlint are you using ? $ rpm -qi rpmlint Name: rpmlint Version : 1.4 Release : 11.fc17 ... The following change in rpmlint could cause the error: 2012-09-06 - Tom Callaway - 1.4-10 - fix handling of ruby RI files as text files (they are binary files) - apply upstream fix for macro regexp BTW, I get the same error for a spec taken from your own srpm or taken from Koji's srpm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870184] Review Request: drumkv1 - an old-school digital drumkit sampler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones --- Thanks for taking this on. I've addressed the issues here. Good catch on the power PC build. This applies to a number of other packages from the same author. I'll let him know %changelog * Sat Nov 17 2012 Brendan Jones 0.1.0-4 - Renable hidden source directories - Add COPYING to lv2 plugin - Force LV2 path in configure - Correct arch handling - Remove explicit version requires on lv2 SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/drumkv1.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870860] Review Request: opencsg - Library for Constructive Solid Geometry using OpenGL
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870860
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What about 'dos2unix license.txt' - is it OK?
This is OK. This way the text won't be changed, it affects the line endings
only, but doesn't touch the contents.
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4699261
$ rpmlint -i -v *
opencsg.src: I: checking
opencsg.src: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
opencsg.src: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/OpenCSG-1.3.2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
opencsg.i686: I: checking
opencsg.i686: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
opencsg.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/opencsg-1.3.2/license.txt
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
opencsg.x86_64: I: checking
opencsg.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
opencsg.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/opencsg-1.3.2/license.txt
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
opencsg-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
opencsg-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
opencsg-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
opencsg-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
opencsg-devel.i686: I: checking
opencsg-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
opencsg-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
opencsg-devel.x86_64: I: checking
opencsg-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
opencsg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
opencsg.spec: I: checking-url http://www.opencsg.org/OpenCSG-1.3.2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
No recognizable issues.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2 with exceptions
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
c790c92998f7113cb35cde825f81c5532755908a0a3f43c3c3c8df2326b3b925
OpenCSG-1.3.2.tar.gz
c790c92998f7113cb35cde825f81c5532755908a0a3f43c3c3c8df2326b3b925
OpenCSG-1.3.2.tar.gz.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
[Bug 863793] Review Request: skeinforge - Converts 3D model into G-Code for RepRap
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863793 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 863796] Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863796 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876399] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default - Set of useful typemaps
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876399 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876401] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS - Converts Perl XS code into C code
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876401 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876403] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess - Guess C++ compiler and flags
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876403 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876405] Review Request: perl-Module-Build-WithXSpp - XS++ enhanced flavor of Module::Build
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876405 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876406] Review Request: perl-Data-Rmap - Recursive map, apply a block to a data structure
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876406 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876408] Review Request: perl-Boost-Geometry-Utils - Boost::Geometry::Utils Perl module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876408 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876409] Review Request: perl-Growl-GNTP - Perl implementation of GNTP Protocol (Client Part)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876409 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876411] Review Request: perl-Language-Expr - Simple mini-language for use in expression
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876411 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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 876915] Review Request: erlang-emmap - Erlang mmap interface
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876915 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Alias||erlang-emmap Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4694218 $ rpmlint -i -v * erlang-emmap.i686: I: checking erlang-emmap.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mmap -> map, m map, mamma The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. erlang-emmap.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1.gitd0ef891 ['0-0.1.git8725d46.fc19', '0-0.1.git8725d46'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. erlang-emmap.i686: I: checking-url https://github.com/krestenkrab/emmap (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-emmap.src: I: checking erlang-emmap.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mmap -> map, m map, mamma The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. erlang-emmap.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/krestenkrab/emmap (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-emmap.src: W: invalid-url Source0: krestenkrab-emmap-8725d46.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. erlang-emmap.x86_64: I: checking erlang-emmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mmap -> map, m map, mamma The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. erlang-emmap.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.1.gitd0ef891 ['0-0.1.git8725d46.fc19', '0-0.1.git8725d46'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. erlang-emmap.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/krestenkrab/emmap (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-emmap-debuginfo.i686: I: checking erlang-emmap-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url https://github.com/krestenkrab/emmap (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-emmap-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking erlang-emmap-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/krestenkrab/emmap (timeout 10 seconds) erlang-emmap.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: krestenkrab-emmap-8725d46.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. %global git_tag 8725d46 but: * Tue Nov 13 2012 Peter Lemenkov - 0-0.1.gitd0ef891 It's the only issue worth to discuss. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848990] Review Request: libnetfilter_acct - A library providing interface to extended accounting infrastructure
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848990 --- Comment #6 from Hushan Jia --- I'm submitting fixed review, sorry for delay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877694] New: Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877694 Bug ID: 877694 Summary: Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: ozan.cagla...@gmail.com Type: --- Spec URL: http://ozancaglayan.com/fedora/SPECS/hidapi.spec SRPM URL: http://ozancaglayan.com/fedora/SRPMS/hidapi-0.7.0-0.20120921git85d608e.fc17.src.rpm Description: HIDAPI is a multi-platform library which allows an application to interface with USB and Bluetooth HID-class devices on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and Mac OS X. On Linux, either the hidraw or the libusb back-end can be used. There are trade-offs and the functionality supported is slightly different. Fedora Account System Username: ozancaglayan Koji build task: (f17) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4699283 (f16) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4699292 -- This is my first package, so I need a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877694] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877694 Ozan Çağlayan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871216] Review Request: tupi - Tupi Open 2D Magic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 Gustav Gonzalez changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |17 --- Comment #18 from Gustav Gonzalez --- Hi everyone! This is the latest version of the files, please, test them and tell me if there's something to fix: http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi.spec http://www.maefloresta.com/fedora/tupi-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Thank you guys! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838775] Review Request: ghc-css-text - CSS parser and renderer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838775 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-17 18:48:42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838775] Review Request: ghc-css-text - CSS parser and renderer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838775 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-css-text-0.1.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable 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 832831] Review Request: php-pirum-Pirum - A simple PEAR channel server manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832831 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-17 18:49:06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832831 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-pirum-Pirum-1.1.4-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable 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 832831] Review Request: php-pirum-Pirum - A simple PEAR channel server manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832831 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-pirum-Pirum-1.1.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable 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 829865] Review Request: perl-MARC-XML - Read and write XML serialization of MARC data
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829865 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-17 18:51:04 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829865] Review Request: perl-MARC-XML - Read and write XML serialization of MARC data
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829865 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- perl-MARC-XML-0.93-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable 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 877651] Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651 --- Comment #2 from Alex Lancaster --- This is great! I'm so glad somebody is getting around to packaging this. It would be great if you could make this bug dependent on the package reviews for the 3 new packages (assuming they're not yet included in Fedora) so they can be tracked. I notice you've also updated the wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE It would be good if you could add a link to this review there, as some folks might not know about it. (I only found out about it because I happened across the archives for the scitech list, which I'm not a member of right 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 877651] Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651 --- Comment #3 from Alex Lancaster --- PS. I'm willing to help review this when the time comes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825557] Review Request: mingw-clucene - CLucene 2.3.3.4 built for MinGW
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557 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 825557] Review Request: mingw-clucene - CLucene 2.3.3.4 built for MinGW
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-5.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 825557] Review Request: mingw-clucene - CLucene 2.3.3.4 built for MinGW
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-5.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 840109] Review Request: php-lessphp - A compiler for LESS written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840109 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- Simplified the spec and moved tests. Spec URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-lessphp.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-lessphp-0.3.8-2.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 871216] Review Request: tupi - Tupi Open 2D Magic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #19 from Gustav Gonzalez --- Report of my tests: SPECS]$ rpmlint tupi.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. SRPMS]$ rpmlint tupi-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. RPMS]$ rpmlint x86_64/tupi-0.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupitwitter.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupianimation.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupigui.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupitimeline.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupicolorpalette.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiscenes.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupihelp.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupifwcore.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupifwgui.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupipen.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiplugincommon.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupimport.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupibase.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupinet.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupistore.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiexport.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupikinas.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupilibrary.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupiexposure.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupi.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupipaintarea.so tupi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tupi/libtupidebug.so tupi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tupi.bin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 23 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840109] Review Request: php-lessphp - A compiler for LESS written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840109 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet --- Build fails. + help2man --version-option=-v --no-info plessc help2man: can't get `--help' info from plessc Try `--no-discard-stderr' if option outputs to stderr Probably because the package is not installed (plessc command not found) Setting the path seems ok. help2man --version-option='-v' --no-info ./plessc [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. As said in comment #1 you need to own /usr/share/tests or requires php-pear which own this dir -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877705] New: Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 Bug ID: 877705 Summary: Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: jamieli...@fedoraproject.org Type: --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks-1.2-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux torsocks has fallen by the wayside for the last year (i.e. patches sent upstream but not applied). Recently, the current torsocks lead developer gave the Tor project permission to take over development [1], so it appears there's still some life left in the project. [1] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-November/026285.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Hi Brendan, Any news from upstream on this issue? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830270] Review Request: python-hgdistver - Python library to generate package version info from mercurial tags
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830270 --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks 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 830270] Review Request: python-hgdistver - Python library to generate package version info from mercurial tags
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830270 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-hgdistver Short Description: Python library to generate package version info from mercurial tags Owners: fab Branches: F18 F17 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 871216] Review Request: tupi - Tupi Open 2D Magic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871216 --- Comment #20 from Volker Fröhlich --- The build still isn't verbose enough. You should see the exact compiler command executed. The language handling isn't complete. While you're generating a list of locale files in the install section, you're not actually using it in the files section. I'd personally remove the .bin extension from the executable and thus the desktop file. desktop-file-validate tupi.desktop tupi.desktop: error: (will be fatal in the future): value "tupi.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon name with an extension, but there should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if the value is not an absolute path tupi.desktop: warning: value "Application;Graphics;2DGraphics;RasterGraphics;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application" Please bump the release number of the spec file on changes and try to write a meaningful changelog entry. This makes work easier for reviewers. It wont be release 80. The number is only relevant for versions you publish. So you'd be at 3 or 4 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
