[Bug 854558] Review Request: erlang-riak_api - Riak Client APIs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854558 Bug 854558 depends on bug 854547, which changed state. Bug 854547 Summary: Upgrade erlang-riak_core to the version 1.2.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854547 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854558] Review Request: erlang-riak_api - Riak Client APIs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854558 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:41:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854558] Review Request: erlang-riak_api - Riak Client APIs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854558 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-eleveldb-1.2.2-1.fc18, erlang-riak_pipe-1.2.1-1.p1.fc18, erlang-merge_index-1.2.1-1.fc18, erlang-riak_api-1.2.1-1.fc18, erlang-riak_core-1.2.1-3.p1.fc18, erlang-riak_kv-1.2.1-2.p3.fc18, erlang-riak_search-1.2.1-1.p2.fc18, erlang-riak_control-1.2.1-2.fc18, riak-1.2.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-fixtures-0.3.9-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:45:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:45:45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-lessphp-0.3.8-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:45:58 -- 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 865303] Review Request: realTimeConfigQuickScan - inspect system settings for realtime performance
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865303 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- realTimeConfigQuickScan-0-0.9.20120506hg.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 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 upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:46:13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:47:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871629] Review Request: xword - Reads and writes crossword puzzles in the Across Lite file format
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871629 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xword-1.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 863571] Review Request: flare - A single player, 2D-isometric, action Role-Playing Game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863571 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- flare-0.17.1-8.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 853514] Review Request: rubygem-clouddb - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud DB service
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853514 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:47:41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853514] Review Request: rubygem-clouddb - Ruby interface into the Rackspace Cloud DB service
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853514 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-clouddb-0.0.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863571] Review Request: flare - A single player, 2D-isometric, action Role-Playing Game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863571 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:47:25 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875316] Review Request: python-praw - A python package that allows for simple access to reddit's API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875316 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-praw-1.0.15-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 866495] Review Request: vzctl - OpenVZ containers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866495 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vzctl-4.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 854386] Review Request: rubygem-openstack-quantum-client - Ruby openstack quantum Client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854386 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854386] Review Request: rubygem-openstack-quantum-client - Ruby openstack quantum Client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854386 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package rubygem-openstack-quantum-client-0.1.5-3.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rubygem-openstack-quantum-client-0.1.5-3.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18872/rubygem-openstack-quantum-client-0.1.5-3.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875849] Package Review - mate-calc - MATE Desktop calculator app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875849 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 02:59:29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875849] Package Review - mate-calc - MATE Desktop calculator app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875849 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-calc-1.5.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 811661] Review Request: scirenderer - A Java rendering library based on JoGL
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811661 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scirenderer-1.0.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 811661] Review Request: scirenderer - A Java rendering library based on JoGL
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811661 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 03:01:58 -- 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 838775] Review Request: ghc-css-text - CSS parser and renderer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838775 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-css-text-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 873454] Review Request: mate-image-viewer - Eye of MATE image viewer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873454 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-panel-1.5.1-1.fc18, mate-image-viewer-1.5.0-2.fc18, libmatewnck-1.5.0-1.fc18, libmatenotify-1.5.0-1.fc18, libmateweather-1.5.0-1.fc18, libmatekbd-1.5.0-1.fc18, libmatekeyring-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-icon-theme-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-dialogs-1.5.0-2.fc18, mate-doc-utils-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-menus-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-media-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-system-monitor-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-keyring-1.5.0-2.fc18, mate-settings-daemon-1.5.3-1.fc18, mate-control-center-1.5.0-2.fc18, mate-notification-daemon-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-session-manager-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-themes-1.5.0-1.fc18, mate-utils-1.4.0-4.fc18, mate-screensaver-1.5.0-3.fc18, mate-window-manager-1.5.2-7.fc18, mate-desktop-1.5.3-4.fc18, mate-power-manager-1.5.0-2.fc18, mate-file-manager-1.5.0-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864334] Review Request: opensaml-java-parent - OpenSAML Java Parent
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864334 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensaml-java-parent-4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 821233] Review Request: vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821233 --- Comment #27 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- (In reply to comment #26) (In reply to comment #25) the compilation fails now with the following error messages: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-8. svn1845/guayadeque_buildlog.txt?a=_22ag5z68tU That error message looks guayadeque related, isn't it? It has nothing to do with vdr-live. you are right, it has nothing to do with vdr-live. Can the review are approved ? have you time ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-Monolog-1.2.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 842199] Review Request: php-Monolog - Logging for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842199 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 03:09:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869157] Review Request: mate-utils - MATE utility programs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869157 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-23 03:10:09 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878421] Review Request: rubygem-bundler_ext - Load system gems via Bundler DSL
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878421 --- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Hi, here we go ... not sure about the %check section though, but it should work I hope: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-bundler_ext.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-bundler_ext-0.1.0-3.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4720147 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #20 from Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk --- (In reply to comment #18) I've stopped working on this, the repo was created, however, I wait for this discusion to end somehow, before I continue. Until Mario (or anyone else) raises any objection or blocker, you are free to continue and submit builds. (In reply to comment #19) The only thing which I would show is that I don't recognize this as the right way to review packages. We have the review guidelines, and we should follow them. This is not about the quality of your package, it was just about the quality of the review. Of course, we can change everything once the packages have been built and some bugs come up. But we could perhaps avoid this by doing reviews according to the guidelines. There is no guideline, that requires use of fedora-review(1). As sponsor, you should know that. If you found that any of (and even 'SHOULD') guidelines were violated, please, state it here, so we can fix it. While doing review-review, if there are any parts of review, that are not clear to you, I will happily explain them. Community projects are about cooperation and communication, not only guidelines, even if there is no guideline for that. If this should go more OT, please contact me (cc my sponsor) via mail. 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 866901] Review Request: gogui - GUI to play game of Go
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866901 --- Comment #21 from Christophe Burgun jo...@fedoraproject.org --- I have add the licence file to the subpackage New links : SPEC : http://jouty.fedorapeople.org/gogui.spec SRPM : http://jouty.fedorapeople.org/gogui-1.4.6-8.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879565] New: Review Request: bitfrost - OLPC security modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879565 Bug ID: 879565 Summary: Review Request: bitfrost - OLPC security modules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: kparm...@myseneca.ca Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h1wnz36hdvi3jqz/bitfrost%20%282%29.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qphq6x27ophlhl8/bitfrost-1.0.15-3.0.2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Hi, This package is a collection of Python modules which implement parts of Bitfrost, the OLPC security platform. I am working on it as my program's project in which I have to make this package available for x86_64/i686 ARM architectures. I would appreciate if you would review it for me and give me feedback. Fedora Account System Username: kparmar4 Output of rpmlint: bitfrost.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/util/pysign.so pysign.so A shared object soname provides is provided by a file in a path from which other packages should not directly load shared objects from. Such shared objects should thus not be depended on and they should not result in provides in the containing package. Get rid of the provides if appropriate, for example by filtering it out during build. Note that in some cases this may require disabling rpmbuild's internal dependency generator. bitfrost.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/util/pyverify.so pyverify.so A shared object soname provides is provided by a file in a path from which other packages should not directly load shared objects from. Such shared objects should thus not be depended on and they should not result in provides in the containing package. Get rid of the provides if appropriate, for example by filtering it out during build. Note that in some cases this may require disabling rpmbuild's internal dependency generator. bitfrost.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. bitfrost.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/leases/crypto.py 0644L /usr/bin/env This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. bitfrost.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/leases/errors.py 0644L /usr/bin/env This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. bitfrost.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/leases/keys.py 0644L /usr/bin/env This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. bitfrost.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/util/urlrange.py 0644L /usr/bin/python This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. bitfrost.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/leases/core.py 0644L /usr/bin/env This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. bitfrost.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bitfrost/util/json.py 0644L /usr/bin/python2.5 This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 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 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 --- Comment #11 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- - fixed hash ( woops, where did that g come from ) - fixed date to be commit date and not clone date - use version 0 - use datadir instead of /usr/local - remove sshuttle.md in favor of the manpage - remove make from BR - added comment on how to create the source tarball one thing i dont know how to solve is that rpmlint complains about the comment containing a macro bcs of this line: # checkout=`git log --pretty=format:%adgit%h -n1 --date=short|sed 's@-@@g'` Update: Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/sshuttle.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sshuttle-0-6.20120810git9ce2fa0.fc17.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4720613 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 --- Comment #12 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- i also upstream about the outdated fsf address -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868931] Review Request: sshuttle - Transparent Proxy VPN
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868931 --- Comment #13 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- .. woops informed upstream, sorry for the spam -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879568] New: Review Request: xs-release - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568 Bug ID: 879568 Summary: Review Request: xs-release - XS repository configuration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: kparm...@myseneca.ca Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7pv0yzuiks43t7y/xs-release%20%282%29.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dd8kmpu7pf5qlay/xs-release-6-1.0.2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Hi, This package contains the XS repository configuration. I am working on it as my program's project in which I have to make this package available for x86_64/i686 ARM architectures. I would appreciate if you would review it for me and give me feedback. Fedora Account System Username: kparmar4 Output of RPMLINT: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. xs-release.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. xs-release.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 878733] Review Request: bitfrost-1.0.15-3.1 - OLPC bitfrost security modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878733 kparm...@myseneca.ca changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-11-23 06:23:37 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878734] Review Request: xs-release-6-1 - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878734 kparm...@myseneca.ca changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-11-23 06:29:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #6 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- After discussing with reporter on irc, I close this one, do a review of the 2nd one so he see what it look like, but the package will not be approved per comment #5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878734] Review Request: xs-release-6-1 - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878734 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Second one being #879568 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879565] Review Request: bitfrost - OLPC security modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879565 kparm...@myseneca.ca changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-11-23 06:31:02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879568] Review Request: xs-release - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org 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 844721] Review request: python-django-flash - A Django extension to provide support for Rails-like flash
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721 --- Comment #13 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Another ping, what's the status here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879568] Review Request: xs-release - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568 --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- So, a few notes. First, as said on irc and others bugs ( I just say it for people who will later read this bug ), the review cannot be completed because that's a item we cannot ship. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_of_Package_Managers However, for helping the review, i will continue the review just to show how it go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879568] Review Request: xs-release - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
So, a few notes :
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
this part is no longer needed, rpm does it by default. So this is cleaner to
not add this. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
same as above, already done by rpm. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Unless if you plan to have a package for RHEL 5 or similar, this can be
removed, as weel as the BuildRoot tag in the header.
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
same, that's the default since a few version of rpm. This can be safely removed
:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
Since there is no tarball, there is no need to have %setup
%setup -q -c -T
so you can remove %prep section all together ( even if rpmlint will complain )
Any package should have the license, and there is none. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
There is no reason why the license would GPLv2 ( since that's written nowhere
), and if this is GPL, you need to distribute the text of the license with it.
While for this precise case of configuration file, this is a little bit weird (
and just done to show the process ), the same apply to a regular software.
IE, the reviewer need to be able to why this is under the license written in
the tag ( usually, there is a file with the source code, or there is note in
the source code ), and the license should be present when installing the
package.
# Epoch incremented to 1 so that it is seen as an upgrade over xs-release-9
(XS-0.6)
Epoch:1
Usually, we try to avoid Epoch ( as this produce subtle interactions issues ),
but for this one, why is xs-release using a different version number ( ie, if
this was 9 before, why is it 6 now ) ? And I am not sure we should care about
non fedora package.
URL:http://wiki.laptop.org
Source0:olpcxs.repo
Source1:olpcxs-testing.repo
we usually need to know where the file come from. While for this case, we can
say they were written by the packager, usually, the url where to find them, or
a comment explaining how to update the file should be added. ( again, this
package is not really the best example, so I does not really make sense for
this specific packages )
Finally, some of us ( me included ) use a tool called fedora-review (
https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ ) for reviewing packages ( see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869861 for a recent example review
). And this tool wrk best when the url to the package are directly
downloadable.
using dropbox force us to download the file by the browser to then run the
tool. So if you could either use something else than dropbox, or put the direct
link in the next review request ( if this exist, of course ), this would be
better.
Usually, after that, the reviewer wait for a new version of the spec and srpm
with the correction of the issue noted. ( ie, just add a comment saying I
fixed this and this, and the new version of the spec is here, the new srpm is
here ) Then the spec is inspected again and checked against a checklist ( the
part done by fedora-review tools ) and if there is more issues, explain them
and wait again.
until the package is seen as non suitable for Fedora ( due to unfixable issues
such as license problem, etc ), or until the packager change his mind, or until
the package is ready to be packaged, where the process continue.
In your case, as you need a sponsor, there is another step, ie finding a
sponsor.
Hope this help
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879568] Review Request: xs-release - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Hi,
Just a few questions :
why is there a -devel package ? while I know that the policy, torsocks need the
.so to run :
$ torsocks ssh
/usr/bin/torsocks: /usr/lib64/torsocks/libtorsocks.so does not exist! Try
re-installing torsocks.
So we should just merge the 2 rpms.
Also, I am not that comfortable with the idea of shipping a modified uwt under
this form, but maybe that's planned to merge that with the non modified one ?
And a few notes :
%{_libdir}/torsocks/ is unowned , should be fixed (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories )
The 2 patch should be commented as being sent upstream ( and sent if that's not
already the case )
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
I see there is also a .sig file, could you consider shipping it as well ( even
if we do not use it for now )
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= Issues =
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
= moot since subpackage should be dropped
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: Package functions as described.
= should be fixed once packages are merged
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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.
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]: %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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in torsocks-
devel
[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) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated.
2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/877705-torsocks/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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[Bug 873813] Review Request: gnome-shell-search-github-repositories - Search your Github Repos from the gnome-shell
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873813
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Hi,
%{_datadir}/gnome-shell-search-github/popup.glade , I think this result into
having a unowned directory.
Since the package work only with gnome-shell, I assume this requires a recent
Fedora, so the 2 macros definition at the start of the file can safely be
dropped.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879614] New: Review Request: invokebinder - A Java DSL for binding method handles forward, rather than backward
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879614 Bug ID: 879614 Summary: Review Request: invokebinder - A Java DSL for binding method handles forward, rather than backward Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: bkab...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/invokebinder/invokebinder.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/invokebinder/invokebinder-1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This library hopes to provide a more friendly DSL for binding method handles. Unlike the normal MethodHandle API, handles are bound forward from a source MethodType and eventually adapted to a final target MethodHandle. Along the way the transformations are pushed onto a stack and eventually applied in reverse order, as the standard API demands. Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4720841 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879568] Review Request: xs-release - XS repository configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879568 --- Comment #3 from kparm...@myseneca.ca --- Hi, Thanks for the review and feedback. I'll keep in mind all that you mentioned above. As you would have seen in the spec file, I am not the main packager of this package. I have repackaged it so that it meets the guidelines. But once again, thank you for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 873813] Review Request: gnome-shell-search-github-repositories - Search your Github Repos from the gnome-shell
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873813
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
not sure about this, but the popup is a gui application. It all depend on how
you plan to use it, so I think we could ignore this.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
see previous comment ( and that's easy to fix but blocking )
[!]: Package functions as described.
I was not able to make this work after installation, but the popup do not
accept my password nor show any errors message.
= 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: glib-compile-schemas is run if required
Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-shell-search-github-repositories
[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 (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/873813-gnome-shell-search-github-
repositories/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]:
[Bug 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mizde...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I am taking this 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 879435] Review Request: c-graph - an interactive package that demonstrates the mathematical operation of convolution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879435 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865970] Review Request: dwlocstat - Tool for examining Dwarf location info coverage
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865970 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Ok so good for me ( sorry to not have approved earlier ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #42 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- show your patch and .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 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #43 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- did you install wxGTK-devel? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879624] New: Review Request: jbossws-native - JBossWS Native
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879624 Bug ID: 879624 Summary: Review Request: jbossws-native - JBossWS Native Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: mgold...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbossws-native/4.1.0-1/jbossws-native.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbossws-native/4.1.0-1/jbossws-native-4.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: JBoss WS Native classes Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4720853 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879614] Review Request: invokebinder - A Java DSL for binding method handles forward, rather than backward
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879614 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I am taking this 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 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- The package is approved, you need to ask for the git repo, no ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- It fails to build in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4720875 It looks like antlr dependency is missing. Please make sure the package builds in rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877705] Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 --- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Thanks very much for the review! :) Changes made: - sig file included - devel merged - directory owned - upstream bugs linked - opened bug report upstream for FSF address - mark bash completion file as a config file The Tor project been given permission to take over torsocks, which has been unmaintained for quite some time. uwt is a Tor project fork of usewithtor, so I'm fairly sure that uwt will be shipped with whatever future releases of torsocks they make. SRPM: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks-1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks.spec DIFF: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/torsocks/torsocks.spec.diff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879624] Review Request: jbossws-native - JBossWS Native
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879624 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 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 877705] Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Great, so 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 846540] Review Request: sisu-maven-plugin - Sisu plugin for Apache Maven
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846540 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #44 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- rpm -qa |grep wxGTK wxGTK-gl-2.8.12-4.fc17.x86_64 wxGTK-media-2.8.12-4.fc17.x86_64 wxGTK-devel-2.8.12-4.fc17.x86_64 wxGTK-2.8.12-4.fc17.x86_64 guayadeque-CMakeLists.patch https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-8.svn1845/guayadeque-CMakeLists.patch?a=ZpQd4Id4lAc guayadeque.spec https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/guayadeque/guayadeque-0.3.6-8.svn1845/guayadeque.spec?a=CbZerwHKmSA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878188] Review Request: qtbase - Qt5 - QtBase components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878188 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jrez...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com --- # use qt5- prefix or not? -- rex I see one issue not using qt5 prefix - potential conflict of modules. At least now there's qt5's and qt4's qtwebkit module. Qt 6 is not going to be something we can expect soon but... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879435] Review Request: c-graph - an interactive package that demonstrates the mathematical operation of convolution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879435 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter |AwaitingSubmitter,NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 --- Comment #6 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: torsocks Short Description: Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor Owners: jamielinux 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 877705] Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 --- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- For some reason I can't change the fedora-cvs flag. It's greyed out for me and not entirely sure why. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839097] Review Request: python-flask-autoindex - A mod_autoindex for Flask
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839097 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-flask-autoindex-0.4.1-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-flask-autoindex-0.4.1-6.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 877705] Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- I have set it for you, but can you see with fedora-infrastructure ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: torsocks - Use SOCKS-friendly applications with Tor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877705 --- Comment #9 from Jamie Nguyen j...@jamielinux.com --- Thanks Michael. I've posted to fedora-devel. If I get no progress there then I'll post to infra too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846540] Review Request: sisu-maven-plugin - Sisu plugin for Apache Maven
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846540 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- Fedora review 2012-11-23 sisu-maven-plugin rpmlint output: $ rpmlint koji/sisu-maven-plugin-*.rpm sisu-maven-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mojos - moos sisu-maven-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mojos - moos 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + Rpmlint OK + Package named according to the guidelines + Specfile named after the package + The package license tag ASL 2.0 and EPL is an approved Fedora license + The package license tag matches the license in the sources + License files included in %doc (LICENSE-ASL.txt and LICENSE-EPL.txt) + The spcefile is written in legible English + Sources matches upstream: sha256sum sisu-maven-plugin-1.1 sisu-maven-plugin-1.1.tar.gz 954de8ca41fefd09e3ee01549f532b6bd7e04d56b3176ecb2ae197ce28debe62 sisu-maven-plugin-1.1 954de8ca41fefd09e3ee01549f532b6bd7e04d56b3176ecb2ae197ce28debe62 sisu-maven-plugin-1.1.tar.gz + Package builds in koji https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4720986 + BuildRequires are sane + No locales + No shared libraries + No bundled libraries + Package own directories it creates + No duplicates in %files (except for license files) + File permissions are sane + Specfile uses macros consistently + Contains code + Javadoc in separate sub package + %doc is not runtime essential + No static libraries + No development files + No libtool archives + No GUI applications + Package does not own other's directories + Installed filenames are valid utf8 Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879435] Review Request: c-graph - an interactive package that demonstrates the mathematical operation of convolution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879435 --- Comment #2 from Adrienne Thompson a...@codeartnow.com --- Hi Jussi, It's been a while since I looked at an rpm. I thought the review process was simple, only to discover from bugzilla that I need both a spec file and a built srpm.:) It will take me a little while to figure out what a spec file is and to sort out how to do the build - my desk is cluttered. Let me get back to you on this. Why did I think you had auto plugins to easily do the conversion? Someone ought to write an app that does the job of easily converting the tarball to an srpm.:) I may not be able to even look into the problem until January as I have lots of web work to complete at gnu.org/software/c-graph. Until then, please have a look at the package. Thank you, Adrienne -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854723] Review Request: bat - Binary Analysis Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854723 --- Comment #4 from Wei-Lun Chao blue...@member.fsf.org --- Thanks! New package made: SPEC URL: https://api.opensuse.org/public/source/home:bluebat/bat/bat.spec SRPM URL: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/bluebat/Fedora_17/src/bat-9.0-4.1.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 854728] Review Request: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854728 --- Comment #1 from Wei-Lun Chao blue...@member.fsf.org --- New package made: SPEC URL: https://api.opensuse.org/public/source/home:bluebat/bat-extratools/bat-extratools.spec SRPM URL: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/bluebat/Fedora_17/src/bat-extratools-8.0-9.1.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 854729] Review Request: bat-extratools-java - A collection of extra java tools for the BAT
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854729 --- Comment #1 from Wei-Lun Chao blue...@member.fsf.org --- New package made: SPEC URL: https://api.opensuse.org/public/source/home:bluebat/bat-extratools-java/bat-extratools-java.spec SRPM URL: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/bluebat/Fedora_17/src/bat-extratools-java-8.0-7.1.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 879435] Review Request: c-graph - an interactive package that demonstrates the mathematical operation of convolution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879435 --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- For the review process : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869088] Review Request: latte-integrale - Lattice point enumeration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869088 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878245] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers - Turn 407 into four hundred and seven, etc
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878245 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- There is no license found in the tarball, nor any indication this is under GPL v2, could you clarify that with upstream ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879016] Review Request: phpMemcachedAdmin - Administration for memcached
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879016 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Created attachment 650555 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=650555action=edit phpMemcachedAdmin-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 879016 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878245] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers - Turn 407 into four hundred and seven, etc
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878245
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Another issue is that you have added %defattr, while this is not needed, and we
try to have clean spec right from the start, could you just remove it ?
Once theses 2 issues ( licensing, %defattr ) are fixed I will approve the
package.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= Issues =
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
- useless usage of %defattr
= MUST items =
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/878245-perl-Lingua-
EN-Numbers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is
[Bug 879016] Review Request: phpMemcachedAdmin - Administration for memcached
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879016 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- See the issues in the attachement Blocker : Missing LICENSE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: phpMemcachedAdmin - Administration for memcached
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879016 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878660] Review Request: openshift-origin-node-util - Utility scripts for the OpenShift Origin node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878660 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- I fail to understand. If the user should not run those script, why are they readable ? ( cause you can just do ruby /usr/sbin/oo-list-stale or equivalent to run them as user ). I would even add that you can just get the source code from git and run them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879435] Review Request: c-graph - an interactive package that demonstrates the mathematical operation of convolution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879435 --- Comment #4 from Adrienne Thompson a...@codeartnow.com --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process I did have a quick look at the page. I'll get back to Fedora when I have more time to deal with the spec file and srpm build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878660] Review Request: openshift-origin-node-util - Utility scripts for the OpenShift Origin node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878660 --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- There is also some missing requires : - lsof, for rhc-list-ports - policycoreutils for oo-setup-node - system-config-firewall-base for oo-setup-node ( not sure if that's installed by default ) - quota, for oo-setup-node - curl, for oo-list-access - git, for oo-idler-stats ( and that also pull perl, needed for some shell script ) - libcgroup-tools, for lscgroup in oo-accept-node -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879624] Review Request: jbossws-native - JBossWS Native
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879624 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 879624] Review Request: jbossws-native - JBossWS Native
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879624 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- i will take this 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 879624] Review Request: jbossws-native - JBossWS Native
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879624
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
APPROVED
before import the package,please, can you solved these problems?
adding http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
renaming %{name}-xerces-2.11-support.patch
thanks
NOTES: manual review.
Issues:
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: 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.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Patch0 (0001-xerces-2.11-support.patch)
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= 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.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: 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:
LGPL (v2.1 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
review-jbossws-native/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper
[Bug 879624] Review Request: jbossws-native - JBossWS Native
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879624 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #45 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- As I mentioned earlier, wx* packages don't support pkg-config but use wxconfig instead. There is no wxGTK-devel.pc and I doubt there will be The wxsqlite3 library is named in such a way that wx-config does not pick it up which is why I supplied the much simpler cmake patch above. wx-config --libs wxsqlite3 -pthread -Wl,-z,relro -lwx_gtk2u_wxsqlite3-2.8 -lwx_baseu-2.8 2.8 below refers to the GTK version it was built against and has nothing to do with the version numebr associated with wxsqlite3. $ rpm -ql wxsqlite3 /usr/lib64/libwxcode_gtk2_wxsqlite3-2.8.so.0 /usr/lib64/libwxcode_gtk2_wxsqlite3-2.8.so.0.0.0 /usr/share/doc/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1 /usr/share/doc/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1/LICENCE.txt /usr/share/doc/wxsqlite3-3.0.0.1/Readme.txt As you can see this does not match the wxsqlite3 library nor that specified in your .pc file. You could create a sym link and wx-config and FindwxWidgets(wxsqlite3) would then find the package but that sounds like a waste of tiem to me. I still recommend using the simple, manual patch I provided -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847389] Review Request: python-supernova - wrapper for python-novaclient to access multiple OpenStack nova environments
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847389 --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4721916 $ rpmlint -i -v * python-supernova.src: I: checking python-supernova.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) novaclient - nova client, nova-client, clientele The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-supernova.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novaclient - nova client, nova-client, clientele The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-supernova.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyring - keying, key ring, key-ring The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-supernova.src: I: checking-url http://github.com/rackerhacker/supernova (timeout 10 seconds) python-supernova.src: W: invalid-url Source0: supernova-0.7.5.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. python-supernova.noarch: I: checking python-supernova.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) novaclient - nova client, nova-client, clientele The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-supernova.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US novaclient - nova client, nova-client, clientele The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-supernova.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyring - keying, key ring, key-ring The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-supernova.noarch: I: checking-url http://github.com/rackerhacker/supernova (timeout 10 seconds) python-supernova.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. python-supernova.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary supernova Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. python-supernova.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary supernova-keyring Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. python-supernova.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: supernova-0.7.5.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. OK so far. $ sha256sum * e226f56a7d12ebba9c459fad62f05d5e3f03ae24827aaf2c1f5af8ecd585281d supernova-0.7.5.tar.gz a08a641f617c8411ab9e0f7794c93a49cd5fe2efa9b638f9a834c75510679dc6 supernova-0.7.5.tar.gz.orig The checksums differ, which is a usual problem for Git checkouts. No matter, but for future packages, you should use the following command for download, which delivers an unique checksum: wget --content-disposition https://github.com/rackerhacker/supernova/tarball/c6b6b5a8e9 This is an example for the current Git state. Similar commands can be used for all Github stuff. BTW, there's a Git tag missing from your download command, so it fetches always the latest content. Moreover, I'm missing %doc. There should be at least README.md as a minimal documentation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- $ rpmlint -i -v * harmonyseq.src: I: checking harmonyseq.src: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.src: I: checking-url http://launchpad.net/harmonyseq/stable/0.16/+download/harmonySEQ-0.16.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.i686: I: checking harmonyseq.i686: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary harmonySEQ Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. harmonyseq.x86_64: I: checking harmonyseq.x86_64: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary harmonySEQ Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. harmonyseq-debuginfo.i686: I: checking harmonyseq-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking harmonyseq-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.spec: I: checking-url http://launchpad.net/harmonyseq/stable/0.16/+download/harmonySEQ-0.16.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Some warnings about missing man pages, no matter. The file headers in /src contain the newer versions clause, that's why the license is GPLv3+. Fix this, and your package is ready for a full review. I haven't found any other issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-bunny New Branches: fc16 fc17 fc18 el6 Owners: jdunn InitialCC: Unretiring rubygem-bunny. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875506] Review Request: python-fdb - Firebird RDBMS bindings for Python
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875506
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python3-fdb.noarch: I: checking
python3-fdb.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Firebird - Fire bird,
Fire-bird, Redbird
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python3-fdb.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.firebirdsql.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
python-fdb.src: I: checking
python-fdb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Firebird - Fire bird,
Fire-bird, Redbird
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-fdb.src: I: checking-url http://www.firebirdsql.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
python-fdb.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/fdb/fdb-0.9.1.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
python-fdb.noarch: I: checking
python-fdb.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Firebird - Fire bird,
Fire-bird, Redbird
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-fdb.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.firebirdsql.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
python-fdb-doc.noarch: I: checking
python-fdb-doc.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.firebirdsql.org/ (timeout 10
seconds)
python-fdb.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/fdb/fdb-0.9.1.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
OK so far.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
BSD
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
01dffb6a4638d980f2cbc7c785c48435919d88361b3472c1c9758ae8145daf65
fdb-0.9.1.tar.gz
01dffb6a4638d980f2cbc7c785c48435919d88361b3472c1c9758ae8145daf65
fdb-0.9.1.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A
