[Bug 877651] Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651
--- Comment #5 from pcpa ---
Package was updated to better split subpackages and to
remove some unnecessary files being installed.
Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath/SRPMS/sagemath-5.4-2.fc19.src.rpm
- Do not install alternate cygdb in %%_bindir
- Create the %{name}-core subpackage
- Create the %{name}-doc subpackage
- Create the %{name}-doc-en subpackage
- Create the %{name}-doc-de subpackage
- Create the %{name}-doc-fr subpackage
- Create the %{name}-doc-pt subpackage
- Create the %{name}-doc-ru subpackage
- Create the %{name}-doc-tr subpackage
- Create the %{name}-data metapackage
- Create the %{name}-data-conway_polynomials subpackage
- Create the %{name}-data-elliptic_curves subpackage
- Create the %{name}-data-extcode subpackage
- Do not install pickle_jar extcode contents
- Do not install notebook extcode contents
- Create the %{name}-data-graphs subpackage
- Create the %{name}-data-polytopes_db subpackage
- Create the %{name}-notebook subpackage
- Create the %{name}-rubiks subpackage
- Create the %{name}-sagetex subpackage
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #40 from Ivan Romanov --- PKG_CHECK_MODULES( LIBWXSQLITE3 wxsqlite3 ) For version checking use LIBWXSQLITE3_VERSION -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878236] Review Request: python-waitress - Waitress WSGI server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878236 Gianluca Sforna changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gia...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gia...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Gianluca Sforna --- I am taking this review, spec looks very clean at first sight. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403 --- Comment #7 from Ismael Olea --- Now sequence-library and sqljet are in rawhide so the previous mock steps are not needed anymore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403 Bug 877403 depends on bug 873749, which changed state. Bug 873749 Summary: Update to 1.1.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873749 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: harmonyseq |Review Request: harmonyseq |- a MID sequencer |- a MIDI sequencer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MID sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones --- Sorry about that - thought I'd replied to this. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4714360 SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/harmonyseq-0.16-8.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/harmonyseq.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 876409] Review Request: perl-Growl-GNTP - Perl implementation of GNTP Protocol (Client Part)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876409 --- Comment #18 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to comment #17) > However, the package has been approved, the Git repo created, and it is on > the way to the users. I know, most issues in packages come up after the > review. But if we would consider this as a thing which happens anyway, we > could stop reviewing packages in general. I've stopped working on this, the repo was created, however, I wait for this discusion to end somehow, before I continue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds pear.drush.org channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-drush-1.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds pear.drush.org channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 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 756321] Review Request: csmith - Tool to generate random C programs for compiler testing
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756321 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- csmith-2.1.0-6.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 756321] Review Request: csmith - Tool to generate random C programs for compiler testing
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756321 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 860703] Rename Request: tmw-music - Music files for The Mana World
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860703 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-21 15:23:46 --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann --- All packages are marked as stable 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 860697] Review Request: tmw - The Mana World is a 2D MMORPG
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860697 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-21 15:22:30 --- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann --- All packages are marked as stable 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 860703] Rename Request: tmw-music - Music files for The Mana World
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860703 Bug 860703 depends on bug 860697, which changed state. Bug 860697 Summary: Review Request: tmw - The Mana World is a 2D MMORPG https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860697 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann --- The srpm link is 404, the correct one is: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-mixer-1.0.0-0.3.gitae6b78cf.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879016] New: Review Request: phpMemcachedAdmin - Administration for memcached
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879016 Bug ID: 879016 Summary: Review Request: phpMemcachedAdmin - Administration for memcached Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: jo...@x-tnd.be Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/phpMemcachedAdmin/phpMemcachedAdmin.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/phpMemcachedAdmin/phpMemcachedAdmin-1.2.2-3.svn262.fc17.src.rpm Description: Graphic stand-alone administration for memcached to monitor and debug purpose. Fedora Account System Username: trasher -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856002 --- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann --- No packages built yet...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MID sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- 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 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187
--- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > Requires: %{name}
> > is insufficient here. You'll need a fully versioned dependency:
> > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Well, I know I should do this, but the think here is MCAD doesn't really
> need the exact same version and release as OpenSCAD. In my case, you should
> be able to update openSCAD or MCAD separately. I mean, you can simply run
> OpenSCAD 2012.11.01 and MCAD form 2012.05.10, it works.
>
Well, could be, but with full versioning you make sure that both packages will
be upfdated, which avoids updating only one by accidence. Of course I believe
that it works for the time being, but this could change in the future.
> > Your package contains a *.desktop file, which needs to be installed
> > separately or validated:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
> Will do that.
>
> > Some warnings from rpmlint:
> >
> > openscad.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
> > There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile.
> > Macros
> > are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
> > escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
> The macros are there uncommented, so they can be evaluated if someone wants
> to recreate the source tarball.
>
The macros are "commented" by the hash line. It is not needed, drop it.
> > The package versioning could cause some problems when upgrading it once a
> > fully versioned tarball has been released. Please read the following:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
> I will certainly read that, just for the record, the date based versioning
> is not something I've invented, if you build OpenSCAD, the version used is
> todays date. I overwrite that with:
>
> qmake-qt4 VERSION=%{version} PREFIX=%{_prefix}
>
> Othervise the version (in program's About and such) would depend on the date
> of building.
>
> What would you suggest? This?
>
> Version: 2011.12 (Latest stable)
> Release: 1.20121031gitb04734cbf5%{?dist}
>
> That would mean in program itself, the version would be noted as 2011.06 (a
> bit old).
>
> What about:
>
> Version: 2012.10 (used version, without day)
> Release: 0.31.1{?dist} (0 at the beginning, 31 as the day and .1 so I can
> bump it)
>
> That would mean in program itself, the version would be noted as 2012.10
> (seems OK).
>
> If there is a tarball (e.g. 2012.10) released, I'll do:
>
> Version: 2012.10
> Release: 1{?dist}
>
> This should work, right?
This should work, but prepend a version number "0-" as proposed in the
guidelines to make sure that a future version "0.1" (or anything similar) gets
the correct upgrade path. Or must we not expect such a versioning?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878729] Review Request: acpid-2.0.9-2 - ACPI Event Daemon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878729 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge --- Here it is: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/acpid You can't correct, because it's already there. You can only submit new packages for review. If you're looking for such a package, we have a wishlist: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist Are you doing this just for fun or is it required to get the package really integrated into fedora? If yes, what are your plans to support the package in the future? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #17 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to comment #16) > "If it builds, ship it" is not a good policy. That's not what I said. Of course rpmlint doesn't find all problems, but this is no reason to omit it. Have a look at some of my reviews to see what I mean [1]. The rpmlint output and a complete checklist is always present, and if there are some other issues, I report them, as far as I've found them. By the way, I'm even not convinced about fedora-review. Well, it seems to make the reviewers' job easier, but it tempts to _not_ looking around the files and assume to that all is already done by this tool. That's why I don't use it. I've had such reviews for my own packages, with lots of impressive output and even a lot of useless stuff. But the actual problems haven't been found, so that I had to do more work after pushing it to testing. Just for clarifying that I don't prefer semi-automatic workflow. However, the package has been approved, the Git repo created, and it is on the way to the users. I know, most issues in packages come up after the review. But if we would consider this as a thing which happens anyway, we could stop reviewing packages in general. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?resolution=CURRENTRELEASE&resolution=RAWHIDE&resolution=ERRATA&resolution=NEXTRELEASE&resolution=---&classification=Fedora&emailtype1=substring&query_format=advanced&emailassigned_to1=1&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=CLOSED&email1=mario.blaettermann%40gmail.com&component=Package%20Review&product=Fedora&list_id=853171 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874905] Review Request: php-drush-drush - Command line shell and Unix scripting interface for Drupal
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874905 --- Comment #8 from Anderson Silva --- 1. sorry, for some reason I read the package name to be: php-pear-drush... but it is php-drush-drush. 2. Installing the php-channel-drush allowed me to finish the isntallation. 3. But the isntall is not working for me:' I see: [root@ip-10-203-7-154 drush]# rpm -ql php-drush-drush | grep bin /usr/bin/drush /usr/bin/drush.bat But when I run drush: [root@ip-10-203-7-154 default]# pwd /usr/share/drupal6/sites/default [root@ip-10-203-7-154 default]# drush cc all -u 1 -bash: /usr/bin/drush: No such file or directory [root@ip-10-203-7-154 default]# /usr/bin/drush cc all -u 1 -bash: /usr/bin/drush: No such file or directory 4. Do we really want to drop the .bat file on the file system? I am taking off for the holidays, I will be back on monday and I can provide more feedback if needed. I hope this helps. AS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@redhat.com --- Comment #39 from MartinKG --- the current version of guayadeque-svn1845 is looking for an external version of wxSQLite3-2.8 On Fedora 17 q.e. wxsqlite3-devel-3.0.0.1-7.fc17.x86_64 and wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1-7.fc17.x86_64 are installed. cmake reports that wxsqlite3-2.8 was missing. -- checking for module 'wxsqlite3-2.8' -- package 'wxsqlite3-2.8' not found CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:116 (MESSAGE): libwxsqlite3-2.8 not found! in CMakeLists.txt PKG_CHECK_MODULES was defined as: PKG_CHECK_MODULES( LIBWXSQLITE3 wxsqlite3-2.8 ) IF( NOT LIBWXSQLITE3_LIBRARIES ) MESSAGE( FATAL_ERROR "libwxsqlite3-2.8 not found!" ) ENDIF( NOT LIBWXSQLITE3_LIBRARIES ) how can i solve the problem ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov --- Thanks Mario! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-emmap Short Description: Erlang mmap interface Owners: peter 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 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
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4713616
$ 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: 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: 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, 5 warnings.
Nothing of interest anymore.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
ASL 2.0
[+] 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 *
f0a25e2deda7dc215524cc6348ef6037e7e22e89c0ca40a44e885c17d853f608
krestenkrab-emmap-8725d46.tar.gz
f0a25e2deda7dc215524cc6348ef6037e7e22e89c0ca40a44e885c17d853f608
krestenkrab-emmap-8725d46.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that i
[Bug 821285] Review Request: rubygem-bunny - A synchronous Ruby AMQP client
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821285
Mo Morsi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mo Morsi ---
rpmlint produces a couple warnings, nothing serious but the macro-in-comment
ones should be taken care of (just remove those comments)
rubygem-bunny.src:73: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
rubygem-bunny.src:73: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_instdir}
md5sums:
$ md5sum bunny-0.8.0.gem.*
4fc1d4b2a448538ec88c1ad9ed2c5335 bunny-0.8.0.gem.srpm
4fc1d4b2a448538ec88c1ad9ed2c5335 bunny-0.8.0.gem.upstream
Builds fine in Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4713563
Shame we can't run the tests, but looks like it for the same reason we aren't
running them in the rubygem-pg rpm as a running server is required. Would be
nice to look into a way to mock this stuff somehow at some point (perhaps we
can build a component to take care of both cases if it doesn't exist), but
obviously not a blocker for inclusion.
Lastly I just want to ensure excluding the Gemfile from the package won't pose
a problems. I did quickly try one of the examples from the rpm and it worked so
I assume all is good.
Everything else looks fine and is in accordance w/ the guidelines.
ACK
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821285 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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 821285] Review Request: rubygem-bunny - A synchronous Ruby AMQP client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821285 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mmo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Mo Morsi --- Sorry for the delay, taking this one -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds pear.drush.org channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |php-channel-drush - Adds|php-channel-drush - Adds |php-channel-drush channel |pear.drush.org channel to |to PEAR |PEAR -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds php-channel-drush channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-drush-1.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-drush-1.3-1.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 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds php-channel-drush channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-drush-1.3-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-drush-1.3-1.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 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds php-channel-drush channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-drush-1.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-drush-1.3-1.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 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds php-channel-drush channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-channel-drush-1.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-channel-drush-1.3-1.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 874904] Review Request: php-channel-drush - Adds php-channel-drush channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874904 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 874905] Review Request: php-drush-drush - Command line shell and Unix scripting interface for Drupal
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874905 --- Comment #7 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #4) > Error: Package: php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch > (/php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch) >Requires: php-channel(pear.drush.org) Ooops, sorry. I forgot to give you that required RPM. Here it is: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/php-channel-drush/1.3/1.el6/noarch/php-channel-drush-1.3-1.el6.noarch.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874905] Review Request: php-drush-drush - Command line shell and Unix scripting interface for Drupal
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874905 --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet --- @Anderson : no, naming convention is php-- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874905] Review Request: php-drush-drush - Command line shell and Unix scripting interface for Drupal
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874905 --- Comment #5 from Anderson Silva --- Also, doing a yum search php-pear, it seems the packages naming convention seems yo be: php-pear-Module, it may make sense to name this RPM: php-pear-Drush (just a suggestion) AS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874905] Review Request: php-drush-drush - Command line shell and Unix scripting interface for Drupal
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874905 --- Comment #4 from Anderson Silva --- Output of when I ran on rhel 6, as a yum localinstall: [root@ip-10-203-7-154 ~]# yum localimstall php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch.rpm Loaded plugins: amazon-id, priorities, rhui-lb, security No such command: localimstall. Please use /usr/bin/yum --help [root@ip-10-203-7-154 ~]# yum localinstall php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch.rpm Loaded plugins: amazon-id, priorities, rhui-lb, security Setting up Local Package Process Examining php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch.rpm: php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch Marking php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch.rpm to be installed Zend | 2.6 kB 00:00 Zend_noarch | 2.6 kB 00:00 devenv | 3.1 kB 00:00 epel | 4.3 kB 00:00 passenger | 951 B 00:00 qpid | 2.6 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-client-config-server-6 | 2.6 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-client-config-server-6-jbeap6 | 2.3 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-client-config-server-6-jbews1 | 2.3 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-jbeap-6-rhui-rhel-6-rpms | 3.9 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-jbeap-6-rhui-rhel-6-srpms | 2.6 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-6-jbews1 | 3.7 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-6-jbews1-srpms | 2.6 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-releases | 3.7 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-releases-i386 | 3.7 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-releases-i386/primary_db | 15 MB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-releases-optional | 3.5 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-releases-optional-i386 | 3.5 kB 00:00 rhui-us-east-1-rhel-server-releases-optional-i386/primary_db | 1.7 MB 00:00 Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package drupal6-drush.noarch 0:4.1-3.el6_2 will be obsoleted ---> Package php-drush-drush.noarch 0:5.7.0-1.el6_3 will be obsoleting --> Processing Dependency: php-channel(pear.drush.org) for package: php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch --> Processing Dependency: php-pear(Console_Table) for package: php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch --> Running transaction check ---> Package php-drush-drush.noarch 0:5.7.0-1.el6_3 will be obsoleting --> Processing Dependency: php-channel(pear.drush.org) for package: php-drush-drush-5.7.0-1.el6_3.noarch ---> Package p
[Bug 841662] Review Request: php-pecl-cairo - PHP cairo extension module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841662 Nathanael Noblet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-21 11:18:33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877779] Review Request: openwebbeans - Implementation of the JSR-299 WebBeans
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=89 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- fixed build problems in f19, thanks to A. Grimm tested on http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4713148 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816172] Review Request: perl-constant-defer - Constant subs with deferred value calculation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816172 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-constant-defer-5-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-constant-defer-5-3.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 878612] Review Request: python-pexpect - Unicode-aware Pure Python Expect-like module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878612 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-pexpect-2.5.1-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pexpect-2.5.1-5.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 816172] Review Request: perl-constant-defer - Constant subs with deferred value calculation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816172 --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok --- 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 816172] Review Request: perl-constant-defer - Constant subs with deferred value calculation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816172 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878430] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-rails - Rails REST API documentation tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878430 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-11-21 09:43:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878734] Review Request: xs-release-6-1 - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878734 --- Comment #5 from Bill Nottingham --- Note that repository configuration for non-Fedora repositories isn't allowed in Fedora itself. The package certainly can be reviewed for adherence to other Fedora guidelines, and packaging correctness, but it can't be added to Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878612] Review Request: python-pexpect - Unicode-aware Pure Python Expect-like module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878612 Andrew McNabb changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-21 09:30:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816172] Review Request: perl-constant-defer - Constant subs with deferred value calculation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816172 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-constant-defer New Branches: f17 Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853922] Review Request: guacamole - The main Guacamole web application
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853922 --- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni --- Updated... Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/guacamole-0.6.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816172] Review Request: perl-constant-defer - Constant subs with deferred value calculation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816172 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@hroncok.cz --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- Could you please make this available to f17? Thnaks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878734] Review Request: xs-release-6-1 - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878734 --- Comment #4 from kparm...@myseneca.ca --- Hi Antonio, Thank you for pointing out that. I would gladly edit the spec file to correct the mistakes and resubmit it for review again. I should point that I got this file from OLPC webpage provided to me by my instructors. This package cotains on repository configurations, which used by OLPC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878430] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-rails - Rails REST API documentation tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878430 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878733] Review Request: bitfrost-1.0.15-3.1 - OLPC bitfrost security modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878733 --- Comment #2 from kparm...@myseneca.ca --- Hi Eduardo, Thank you for your feedback. Ok I will do as you suggested. One question, do I need to close this request if I am to build another package or edit the package? Thank 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 878729] Review Request: acpid-2.0.9-2 - ACPI Event Daemon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878729 --- Comment #2 from kparm...@myseneca.ca --- Hi, Thank you for your feedback. I have question, I am fairly new in this, I would take look at guideline and correct the error. As you said that the package is in Fedora already, can you please provide me a link to it? Thank 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 878430] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-rails - Rails REST API documentation tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878430 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Thanks for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-apipie-rails Short Description: Rails REST API documentation tool Owners: bkabrda 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 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla --- No reason not to build for f18, it'll just come as an update. QA will be unaffected, we're frozen. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878734] Review Request: xs-release-6-1 - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878734
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Antonio, would you please be so kind as to outline the errors instead of
> making a very vague statement?
Sure. :)
I mistaken to define them "errors".
This package should provide a repository configuration for yum, so it should be
named xs-release, ok (I don't know if there are specific instructions in these
cases).
Release should be 1%{?dist} (first on Fedora)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
Source* should be an URL or at least say where come from.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL
'Build' section ... Probably there is nothing to build but maybe he should
write something to restate it. :)
'changelog' is outdated.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878612] Review Request: python-pexpect - Unicode-aware Pure Python Expect-like module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878612 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877969] Review Request: python-uinput - Pythonic API to the Linux uinput kernel module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878734] Review Request: xs-release-6-1 - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878734 --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert --- Antonio, would you please be so kind as to outline the errors instead of making a very vague statement? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878430] Review Request: rubygem-apipie-rails - Rails REST API documentation tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878430 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch --- Thank you. I hold of any other comments and APPROVE the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 --- Comment #28 from Ondrej Kozina --- I'm afraid for f18, it's too late. I mean, is it _really_ necessary? Otherwise I think I wouldn't provoke QA people w/o very good reason that late in release cycle. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 Michal Ingeli changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@v3.sk Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@v3.sk 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 876928] Review Request: perl-Math-PlanePath - Points on a path through the 2-D plane
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876928 --- Comment #3 from Michal Ingeli --- Spec URL: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/slic3r/f17/perl-Math-PlanePath.spec SRPM URL: http://v3.sk/~xyzz/rpm/slic3r/f17/perl-Math-PlanePath-92-2.fc17.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > Delete BuildRoot and %clean section. > > %defattr(-,root,root,-) has no effect Removed. I also added some BR to pass more tests. But some modules are still missing in fedora: Number::Fraction Data::Float Math::BigInt::Lite Math::PlanePath module can handle those types, so they are tested, but not needed. It builds in f17 mock. Koji build will have to wait until Math::Libm is in. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852174] Review Request: snapper - Tool for filesystem snapshot management
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174 --- Comment #27 from Richard Hughes --- No f18 packages? :( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878734] Review Request: xs-release-6-1 - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878734 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trp...@katamail.com --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande --- mmm... I already see some errors among first lines (release, source*, build section above all). Maybe you should review packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878729] Review Request: acpid-2.0.9-2 - ACPI Event Daemon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878729 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||mru...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2012-11-21 04:18:39 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge --- Well, where Do I begin... First, this package is already in Fedora, so it's not applicable to include it again. Then: the name is wrong (contains also the version number) I suggest, you read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Thank 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 876409] Review Request: perl-Growl-GNTP - Perl implementation of GNTP Protocol (Client Part)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876409 Michal Ingeli changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk --- Comment #16 from Michal Ingeli --- (In reply to comment #15) > @Michal, perhaps you should read the review guidelines once again: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines > A review shouldn't be picking this and that from the spec file and having a > look around... We need a Mock or Koji build, the rpmlint output for all > packages (srpm, rpm, debug packages if any), comparing the original and > packaged sources and so on. Should you actually know as a sponsored packager. @mario, it's hard to reply to your rant, when it looks like, you didn't even read the review. That guideline, you cited, can you, probably, provide a source? Or a reason, why you think a reviewer should not look around in the package, and pick parts from spec file? "If it builds, ship it" is not a good policy. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877969] Review Request: python-uinput - Pythonic API to the Linux uinput kernel module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969 Fabian Deutsch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
