[Bug 882711] Review Request: ovirt-host-deploy - oVirt host deploy tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882711 Alon Bar-Lev changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Alon Bar-Lev changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882499] Review Request: sbc - Sub Band Codec used by bluetooth A2DP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882499
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Peter
about rpmlint messages
- The warnings about the spelling errors can be ignored
- It would be nice to come with a man pages, but not is a blocker
- No documentation in the devel package, Since the relevant information is in
the base package, no problem
- Regarding the type of license, the package matches with the license GPLv2,
but IMO the license tag should be "GPLv2 and LGPLv2+".
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
devel
* To me this should be a false alarm, it is obvious that you should use
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
in the devel package to match the correct architecture.
[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:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/882499-sbc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /sr
[Bug 882499] Review Request: sbc - Sub Band Codec used by bluetooth A2DP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882499 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||echevemas...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881903] Review Request: python-zope-interface4 - Forward compat package for Zope 3 Interface Infrastructure
Product: Fedora EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881903
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Dabašinskas ---
Ralph, there seems to be file permission issue from fedora review below, also
please review and where appropriate fix rpmlint warnings.
el6 scratch build went fine
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749893
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /mnt/pnt/tomas/881903-python-zope-
interface4/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 204800 bytes in 18 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?)
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file r
[Bug 881903] Review Request: python-zope-interface4 - Forward compat package for Zope 3 Interface Infrastructure
Product: Fedora EPEL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881903 Tomas Dabašinskas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tdaba...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tdaba...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840602] Review Request: maradns - Authoritative and recursive DNS server made with security in mind
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- maradns-2.0.06-3.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 840602] Review Request: maradns - Authoritative and recursive DNS server made with security in mind
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840602 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 22:24:03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872957] Review Request: php-pear-XML-SVG - API for building SVG documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872957 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-pear-XML-SVG-1.1.0-2.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 872957] Review Request: php-pear-XML-SVG - API for building SVG documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872957 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 22:23:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 873643] Review Request: php-pecl-uuid - Universally Unique Identifier extension for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873643 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- php-pecl-uuid-1.0.3-3.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 873643] Review Request: php-pecl-uuid - Universally Unique Identifier extension for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873643 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 22:23:27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 861923] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861923 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 22:23:13 -- 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 861923] Review Request: ghc-hs-bibutils - Haskell binding to bibutils
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861923 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-hs-bibutils-4.15-2.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 859504] Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-xcache-3.0.0-1.fc18.1 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 859504] Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 22:22:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863879] Review Request: f2fs-tools - Tools for Flash-Friendly File System (F2FS)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863879 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 21:35:12 -- 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 861591] Review Request: openteacher - An application that helps you learn a foreign language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861591 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 21:34:15 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882418] Review Request: php-Pimple - A simple Dependency Injection Container for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882418 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882539] Review Request: mate-netspeed - MATE Desktop netspeed app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882539 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- mate-netspeed-1.5.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882418] Review Request: php-Pimple - A simple Dependency Injection Container for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882418 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882539] Review Request: mate-netspeed - MATE Desktop netspeed app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882539 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854837] Review Request: inkscape-sozi - Inkscape extension for creating animated presentations
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 21:25:24 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854176] Review Request: python-django-admin-honeypot - A fake Django admin login screen to notify admins of attempted unauthorized access
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854176 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 21:24:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851818] Review Request: libcompizconfig - Configuration backend for compiz
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851818 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- scratch build you'll find here. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749628 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851818] Review Request: libcompizconfig - Configuration backend for compiz
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851818 --- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- New start point. Spec URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SPEC/libcompizconfig.spec SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SRPM/libcompizconfig-0.8.8-3.fc19.src.rpm Ready to 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 869469] Review Request: octave-odepkg - Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869469 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |octave-odepkg - A package |octave-odepkg - Package for |for solving ordinary|solving ordinary |differential equations and |differential equations and |more|more Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: octave-odepkg Short Description: Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more Owners: ankursinha Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869469] Review Request: octave-odepkg - A package for solving ordinary differential equations and more
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869469 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to comment #5) > Hi Ankur, > one small suggestion. You can drop the initial article from the summary. > > That is > > Summary: Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more > > The reason why I am interested in this package is that I create a spec file > for odepkg last July and this is my only difference. > Hi Jose, Thanks for pointing it out. I'll make the change before committing to SCM :) Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882713] Review Request: gdigi - utility to control Digitech effects pedal on Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882713 --- Comment #2 from Mauro Carvalho Chehab --- (In reply to comment #1) > Hi, > > I'll take this one for review. Thank you for the review! > Needs work: > === > - rpmlint checks return: > gdigi.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.0-20121202git.1.fc17 > ['0.3.0-20121202git.1.fc18', '0.3.0-20121202git.1'] Fixed. Compiled it This time at F18 Beta. > gdigi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/gdigi-0.3.0/gtkknob.c > gdigi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/src/debug/gdigi-0.3.0/gtkknob.h I emailed to the application author for him to fix it upstream. I'll bump version when the fix will be there. > Please provide a new version fixing the needs work issues, with the Release > field bumped, and a specfile changelog entry describing the changes made. Done: http://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/gdigi/gdigi.spec http://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/gdigi/gdigi-0.3.0-20121202git.2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882701] Review Request: zathura-ps - PS support for zathura via libspectre
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882701
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi François
I think I had a dejavu :)
- The .so warning is about the libraries being unversioned, but this are
private libs, Since you don't install them in ld path, this is OK.
- The warnings about the spelling errors can be ignored
Please, and this applies to the package reviewed previously,
if you prefer
the BuildRequires entries can be listed one-by-one:
BuildRequires: libspectre-devel
BuildRequires: zathura-devel >= 0.2.1
because this makes it easier to read
Tested on Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749550
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: 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:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/882701-zathura-ps/licensecheck.txt
* the package is licensed under zlib
[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.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag
[Bug 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187 --- Comment #19 from Miro Hrončok --- Sorry for missing that, updated (didn't bumped the revision number). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882090] Review Request: python-nose-progressive - Nose plugin to show a progress bar and tracebacks during tests
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882090 --- Comment #2 from Dan Callaghan --- (In reply to comment #1) Well spotted, Mario! Fixed: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/python-nose-progressive/python-nose-progressive.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/python-nose-progressive/python-nose-progressive-1.3-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882701] Review Request: zathura-ps - PS support for zathura via libspectre
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882701 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||echevemas...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882512] Review Request: plasma-widget-menubar - Show window menubars
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882512 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||882508 (appmenu-qt) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882508] Review Request: appmenu-qt - Global application menu to Qt
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882508 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||882512 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187 --- Comment #18 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to comment #17) > - Added manpage (BR gzip) gzip is part of the basic build environment: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 It is not needed to add it explicitely. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882481] Review Request: python-doit - Automation Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882481 --- Comment #7 from José Matos --- OK, I understand now why it worked on mock but it failed on koji. The updated distribute_setup was loading it full version. Local mock allows that but koji (rightly so) does not. Understanding that I removed the updated distribute_setup and now with the python3-setuptools it finally works both on koji and locally on mock. As a proof I have this scratch build (it is version 3 with distribute_setup part commented, whereas version 4 removes it): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749504 So the new changes Spec URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-doit.spec SRPM URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-doit-0.18.0-4.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871204] Review Request: urdfdom-headers - The URDF (U-Robot Description Format) headers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871204 --- Comment #2 from Rich Mattes --- Bug filed upstream about licensing: https://bitbucket.org/osrf/urdfdom_headers/issue/1/license-file-doesnt-match-licenses-in I don't think that proposal applies to this package, since nothing is actually built. It's just providing definitions for the URDF standard. Lack of unit tests is something to take up with upstream, but since there is at least one package that requires these headers it's probably a safe bet that anything broken in these headers will be revealed when its dependencies are built. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882713] Review Request: gdigi - utility to control Digitech effects pedal on Linux
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882713
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hdego...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede ---
Hi,
I'll take this one for review.
Full review done:
Good:
=
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPLv3) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
Needs work:
===
- rpmlint checks return:
gdigi.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.0-20121202git.1.fc17
['0.3.0-20121202git.1.fc18', '0.3.0-20121202git.1']
gdigi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gdigi-0.3.0/gtkknob.c
gdigi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/gdigi-0.3.0/gtkknob.h
Please fix the incoherent changelog issue
-please drop the "Requires:expat gtk3", rpm automatically detects this
dependecies based on soname:
rpm -qp --requires
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/gdigi-0.3.0-20121202git.1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
libexpat.so.1()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
-gdigi has a .desktop file so this applies:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
Thus there must be a:
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop
line at the end of the %install section
-please drop the BuildRoot, rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install and %clean section
they are no longer nescessary.
-please drop the %defattr, they are no longer necessary
-please do not gzip the manpage before install rpmbuild will take care of
compressing it in its install destination, and if we ever decide to move from
gzip to for example bz2, then rpmbuild will
automatically do the right thing.
Please provide a new version fixing the needs work issues, with the Release
field bumped, and a specfile changelog entry describing the changes made.
Thanks & Regards,
Hans
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #21 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #17) > > > Eduardo, I didn't see the license file. How you can see under which license > > this software is released ? > > run: > licensecheck LICENSE > > the output is: > > LICENSE: zlib/libpng Ok, thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871203] Review Request: console-bridge - Lightweight set of macros used for reporting information in libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871203 --- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes --- Whoops, that was an oversight in a patch I added. I've fixed the error. New files at: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/console-bridge/console-bridge.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/console-bridge/console-bridge-0.1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm rpmlint: $ rpmlint console-bridge.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/console-bridge* console-bridge.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: console-bridge-0.1.2.tar.bz2 console-bridge.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libconsole_bridge.so libconsole_bridge.so console-bridge.x86_64: W: no-documentation console-bridge-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. The project configuration files for CMake based projects don't seem to have any standard location. I've seen libraries put them in libdir/cmake, libdir/name, libdir/name/cmake, datadir/name, etc. The CMake wiki seems to think they should go in libdir[1], but I don't think Fedora has any policies regarding specific location of these files. [1] http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake/Tutorials/Packaging#Package_Configuration_Files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #20 from Eduardo Echeverria --- (In reply to comment #17) > Eduardo, I didn't see the license file. How you can see under which license > this software is released ? run: licensecheck LICENSE the output is: LICENSE: zlib/libpng -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 François Cami changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from François Cami --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: zathura-pdf-poppler Short Description: PDF support for zathura via poppler Owners: fcami psabata Branches: f18 f17 f16 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 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #18 from François Cami --- Antonio, it should be in the RPM: $ rpm -qlp zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/zathura/pdf.so /usr/share/doc/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1 /usr/share/doc/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1/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 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #17 from Antonio Trande --- >[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of >licensecheck in /home/makerpm/zp/881431-zathura-pdf- > poppler/licensecheck.txt > > * the package is licensed under zlib Eduardo, I didn't see the license file. How you can see under which license this software is released ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #16 from François Cami --- Thank you Eduardo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi François
The .so warning is about the libraries being unversioned, but this are private
libs, Since you don't install them in ld path, this is OK.
Tested on koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749452
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/zp/881431-zathura-pdf-
poppler/licensecheck.txt
* the package is licensed under zlib
[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.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patche
[Bug 882713] New: Review Request: gdigi - utility to control Digitech effects pedal on Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882713 Bug ID: 882713 Summary: Review Request: gdigi - utility to control Digitech effects pedal on Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: mche...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/gdigi/gdigi.spec SRPM URL: http://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/gdigi/gdigi-0.3.0-20121202git.1.fc17.src.rpm Description: gdigi is tool aimed to provide X-Edit functionality to Linux users Supported devices (list misses your DigiTech device? Please get in touch!): RP150 RP155 RP250 RP255 RP355 RP500 RP1000 GNX3000 GNX4K Fedora Account System Username: mchehab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882711] Review Request: ovirt-host-deploy - oVirt host deploy tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882711 Alon Bar-Lev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bazu...@redhat.com, ||dougsl...@redhat.com, ||ih...@redhat.com, ||juan.hernan...@redhat.com, ||mgold...@redhat.com, ||oschr...@redhat.com Blocks||866889 (bootstrap-rewrite) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882711] Review Request: ovirt-host-deploy - oVirt host deploy tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882711 Alon Bar-Lev changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||882704 --- Comment #1 from Alon Bar-Lev --- This is my first package and I need sponsor. I am the upstream maintainer. Build: Could not figure out how to build with dependency of bug#882704 I used scratch of rawhide and it does not find the dependency it should by documentation. fedora-review report is similar to bug#882704, every comment will be fixed in both packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Alon Bar-Lev changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||882711 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882711] New: Review Request: ovirt-host-deploy - oVirt host deploy tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882711 Bug ID: 882711 Summary: Review Request: ovirt-host-deploy - oVirt host deploy tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: alo...@redhat.com Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/alonbl/ovirt-host-deploy/ovirt-host-deploy.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/alonbl/ovirt-host-deploy/ovirt-host-deploy-0.0.0-0.0.master.fc17.src.rpm Description: A dependency of oVirt project version 3.2 release, dependency of ovirt-engine. Fedora Account System Username: alonbl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882418] Review Request: php-Pimple - A simple Dependency Injection Container for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882418 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: php-Pimple |Review Request: php-Pimple |- A simple Dependency |- A simple Dependency |Injection Container for PHP |Injection Container for PHP |5.3 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882418] Review Request: php-Pimple - A simple Dependency Injection Container for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882418 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882418] Review Request: php-Pimple - A simple Dependency Injection Container for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882418 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882418] Review Request: php-Pimple - A simple Dependency Injection Container for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882418 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882418] Review Request: php-Pimple - A simple Dependency Injection Container for PHP 5.3
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882418 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882539] Review Request: mate-netspeed - MATE Desktop netspeed app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882539 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- mate-netspeed-1.5.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-netspeed-1.5.0-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704
--- Comment #2 from Alon Bar-Lev ---
Attach the report and my notes '-->', I hope I got this correctly.
This is a pre-release, however, I would like to know that all OK.
Thanks!
---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
--> This is false positive, we only need jpackage-utils for the java
subpackage.
[!]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
--> This is false positive as the devel package depends on the java package
which depends on the base package correctly.
= 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.
--> LGPLv2.1+
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[?]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
javadoc, %package 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.
--> This is false positive as the devel package depends on the java package
which depends on the base package correctly.
[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)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/test1/review-otopi/licensecheck.txt
--> False positive.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
--> Except for the javadoc subpackage.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[!]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
--> This is false positive, we only need jpackage-utils for the java
subpackage.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %pack
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #14 from François Cami --- Really remove EL5 specific stuff. Thanks. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-4.fc16.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #13 from Eduardo Echeverria --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > @Eduardo > > I'm learning about packaging and I wish to do an informal review of this > package. > Can I do it ? :) Antonio will probably give you an error when running fedora-review because zathura-devel-0.2.1 is available in updates-testing Please run: fedora-review -b 881431 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882701] Review Request: zathura-ps - PS support for zathura via libspectre
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882701 --- Comment #1 from François Cami --- Remove EL5 specific stuff. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-ps.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-ps-0.2.0-2.fc16.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878653] Review Request: NetworkManager-l2tp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for l2tp
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878653] Review Request: NetworkManager-l2tp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for l2tp
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 --- Comment #1 from Alon Bar-Lev --- This is my first package and I need sponsor. I am the upstream maintainer. Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4749118 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882704] New: Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882704 Bug ID: 882704 Summary: Review Request: otopi - oVirt Task Oriented Pluggable Installer/Implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: alo...@redhat.com Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/alonbl/otopi/otopi.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/alonbl/otopi/otopi-0.0.0-0.0.master.fc17.src.rpm Description: A dependency of oVirt project version 3.2 release, dependency of ovirt-engine. Fedora Account System Username: alonbl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879881] Review Request: gst-openmax - OpenMAX plugin for gstreamer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881 --- Comment #5 from amartinenco...@gmail.com --- Changes: BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline. FIXED: changed the name to gst-openmax-0.10.1 BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . 1.summary does not provide a concise description of the package 2.changelog tag specified twice 3.source tag not pointing to upstream source 4.upstream documentation missing 5.files tag points to a specific libdir 6.doc tag does not include all documentation in build FIXED: 1. Chaged the summary 2. Only one changelog tag is being used 3. Source tag points to the proper source 4. Added documentation in the %doc 5. changed to the macro 6. Added all the documentation to the build BAD: 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. •Not included in doc tag FIXED: added all the files BAD: 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. •Source does not use an upstream URL FIXED: Changed to upstream URL BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. •Package only provides libraries COMMENT: it is not a static library, but a gstreamer plugin BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it ▪Not included in spec file FIXED: Added COPYING file to the %doc BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. •summary does not provide a concise description of the package FIXED: Changed the summary BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. •Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions FIXED: Added aditional file called README.fedora with proper instructions --- Comment #6 from amartinenco...@gmail.com --- Changes: BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline. FIXED: changed the name to gst-openmax-0.10.1 BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . 1.summary does not provide a concise description of the package 2.changelog tag specified twice 3.source tag not pointing to upstream source 4.upstream documentation missing 5.files tag points to a specific libdir 6.doc tag does not include all documentation in build FIXED: 1. Chaged the summary 2. Only one changelog tag is being used 3. Source tag points to the proper source 4. Added documentation in the %doc 5. changed to the macro 6. Added all the documentation to the build BAD: 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. •Not included in doc tag FIXED: added all the files BAD: 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. •Source does not use an upstream URL FIXED: Changed to upstream URL BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. •Package only provides libraries COMMENT: it is not a static library, but a gstreamer plugin BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it ▪Not included in spec file FIXED: Added COPYING file to the %doc BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. •summary does not provide a concise description of the package FIXED: Changed the summary BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. •Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions FIXED: Added aditional file called README.fedora with proper instructions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879881] Review Request: gst-openmax - OpenMAX plugin for gstreamer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881 --- Comment #5 from amartinenco...@gmail.com --- Changes: BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline. FIXED: changed the name to gst-openmax-0.10.1 BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . 1.summary does not provide a concise description of the package 2.changelog tag specified twice 3.source tag not pointing to upstream source 4.upstream documentation missing 5.files tag points to a specific libdir 6.doc tag does not include all documentation in build FIXED: 1. Chaged the summary 2. Only one changelog tag is being used 3. Source tag points to the proper source 4. Added documentation in the %doc 5. changed to the macro 6. Added all the documentation to the build BAD: 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. •Not included in doc tag FIXED: added all the files BAD: 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. •Source does not use an upstream URL FIXED: Changed to upstream URL BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. •Package only provides libraries COMMENT: it is not a static library, but a gstreamer plugin BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it ▪Not included in spec file FIXED: Added COPYING file to the %doc BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. •summary does not provide a concise description of the package FIXED: Changed the summary BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. •Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions FIXED: Added aditional file called README.fedora with proper instructions --- Comment #6 from amartinenco...@gmail.com --- Changes: BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline. FIXED: changed the name to gst-openmax-0.10.1 BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . 1.summary does not provide a concise description of the package 2.changelog tag specified twice 3.source tag not pointing to upstream source 4.upstream documentation missing 5.files tag points to a specific libdir 6.doc tag does not include all documentation in build FIXED: 1. Chaged the summary 2. Only one changelog tag is being used 3. Source tag points to the proper source 4. Added documentation in the %doc 5. changed to the macro 6. Added all the documentation to the build BAD: 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. •Not included in doc tag FIXED: added all the files BAD: 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. •Source does not use an upstream URL FIXED: Changed to upstream URL BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. •Package only provides libraries COMMENT: it is not a static library, but a gstreamer plugin BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it ▪Not included in spec file FIXED: Added COPYING file to the %doc BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. •summary does not provide a concise description of the package FIXED: Changed the summary BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. •Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions FIXED: Added aditional file called README.fedora with proper instructions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431
--- Comment #12 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Antonio is right François
If you do not want to offer your package to EPEL5, please remove:
- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u}
-n)
- rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882481] Review Request: python-doit - Automation Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882481 --- Comment #6 from José Matos --- Finishing the last message... mock works locally on both F18 and F19. That is why I have no ideas why this fails on koji. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882539] Review Request: mate-netspeed - MATE Desktop netspeed app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882539 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- mate-netspeed-1.5.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-netspeed-1.5.0-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882539] Review Request: mate-netspeed - MATE Desktop netspeed app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882539 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882481] Review Request: python-doit - Automation Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882481 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #5 from José Matos --- The local run using mock finished without any problems. I am without clues why this fails in any here comes the -3 version that BR: python3-setuptools Spec URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-doit.spec SRPM URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-doit-0.18.0-3.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882701] New: Review Request: zathura-ps - PS support for zathura via libspectre
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882701 Bug ID: 882701 Summary: Review Request: zathura-ps - PS support for zathura via libspectre Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: f...@fcami.net Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-ps.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-ps-0.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The zathura-ps plugin adds PostScript support to zathura by using the libspectre library. Fedora Account System Username: fcami -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882481] Review Request: python-doit - Automation Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882481 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to comment #3) > Note that the error happens for python3 so at best it should be > python3-setuptools > > I am testing locally in mock to understand what the problem is. > > Thank you for the report. In general, it's a good idea to have python-setuptools present. Probably you'll need it anyway to create the egg-info. That's why you should add both python-setuptools and python3-setuptools. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882481] Review Request: python-doit - Automation Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882481 --- Comment #3 from José Matos --- Note that the error happens for python3 so at best it should be python3-setuptools I am testing locally in mock to understand what the problem is. Thank you for the 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 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #11 from François Cami --- Antonio: please do :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 --- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to comment #9) > Thanks for the comments. I've removed all pre-EL6 stuff now. > Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec > SRPM URL: > http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-3.fc16.src.rpm Distribution specific guidelines are not different than Fedora ones at this moment. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines If it is so, then BuildRoot tag can be omitted https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag I think, also the BuildRequires entries can be listed one-by-one: BuildRequires: poppler-glib-devel BuildRequires: zathura-devel >= 0.2.1 @Eduardo I'm learning about packaging and I wish to do an informal review of this package. Can I do it ? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877651] Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jama...@fc.up.pt --- Comment #12 from José Matos --- Hi Paulo, I had the same issue with python-matplotlib-tk just by using ipython -gui so I think that this problem is not specific of sage. FWIW I am interested in reviewing sage. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882481] Review Request: python-doit - Automation Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882481 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4748905 From build.log: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/builddir/build/BUILD/python3-python-doit-0.18.0-2.fc19/distribute_setup.py", line 146, in use_setuptools import pkg_resources ImportError: No module named 'pkg_resources' The package "python-setuptools" is missing from BuildRequires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869469] Review Request: octave-odepkg - A package for solving ordinary differential equations and more
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869469 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jama...@fc.up.pt --- Comment #5 from José Matos --- Hi Ankur, one small suggestion. You can drop the initial article from the summary. That is Summary: Package for solving ordinary differential equations and more The reason why I am interested in this package is that I create a spec file for odepkg last July and this is my only difference. Brendan, if you wish I can finish the review but such as it is the review what is missing is your approval. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187 --- Comment #17 from Miro Hrončok --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/openscad.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/openscad-2012.10.31-3.fc17.src.rpm - Added manpage (BR gzip) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 François Cami changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881431] Review Request: zathura-pdf-poppler - PDF support for zathura via poppler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881431 François Cami changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #9 from François Cami --- Thanks for the comments. I've removed all pre-EL6 stuff now. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-pdf-poppler-0.2.1-3.fc16.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879881] Review Request: gst-openmax - OpenMAX plugin for gstreamer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881 --- Comment #4 from amartinenco...@gmail.com --- This new package needs a 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 879881] Review Request: gst-openmax - OpenMAX plugin for gstreamer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881 --- Comment #3 from amartinenco...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 656127 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=656127&action=edit This is the updated source rpm file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/paris-traceroute-0.92-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870719] Review Request: horst - A highly optimized radio scanning tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870719 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-02 11:16:31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875299] Review Request: slowhttptest - An Application Layer DoS attack simulator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875299 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: slowhttptest Short Description: An Application Layer DoS attack simulator Owners: fab Branches: F17 F18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875299] Review Request: slowhttptest - An Application Layer DoS attack simulator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875299 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #5) > There are warnings about comparing unsigned and signed integers. Maybe you > can patch that and send it upstream! I will inform upstream about that. > Please ask upstream to provide a license file. http://code.google.com/p/slowhttptest/issues/detail?id=16&can=1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877651] Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651 --- Comment #11 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Change back to install .c and .h files in bundled cython. - Make symlink of gmp-ecm to $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/ecm. - Add SAGE_LOCAL/bin to python path so that "sage -gdb" works. Forgot to add to changelog that it now explicitly requires python-matplotlib-tk to avoid import errors in "sage -testall", will add it to changelog. A not so trivial debug I did was some cut&paste + search&replace in gdb to verify the address every symbol in the symmetrica shared library (checking all symbols in symmetrica's def.h and macros.h) to confirm it was mapped to libsymmetrica.so and it indeed was, only the generic "div" symbol was not, but after properly checking symmetrica sources, I learned that it already has a "#define div SYM_div" in def.h and checking SYM_div showed correct results, so, while it is better to figure out what is causing crashes in symmetrica, an option is to link it statically. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath/SRPMS/sagemath-5.4.1-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||805246 Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) --- I think now, after resolve all listed dependencies its will be ready to 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 807810] Review Request: ptpd-phc - Precision Time Protocol daemon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807810 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||ptpd-phc-2.1.0-0.2.20120921 ||gitecca20.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-12-02 07:01:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882617] Review Request: jsoncpp - An implementation of a JSON reader and writer in C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882617 --- Comment #1 from Sébastien Willmann --- Changed license field to "Public Domain or MIT" Spec URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jsoncpp/jsoncpp.spec SRPm URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jsoncpp/jsoncpp-0.6.0-0.2.rc2.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 882619] New: Review Request: steadyflow - Simple download manager for GNOME
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882619 Bug ID: 882619 Summary: Review Request: steadyflow - Simple download manager for GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/steadyflow/steadyflow.spec RPMS URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/steadyflow/steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: GTK+ based download manager that aims for minimalism, ease of use, and a clean, malleable code base. It should be easy to control, whether from the GUI, command line, or D-Bus Fedora Account System Username: echevemaster rpmlint out: rpmlint -v steadyflow.spec steadyflow.spec: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow/trunk/0.2.0/+download/steadyflow-0.2.0.tar.xz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm steadyflow.src: I: checking steadyflow.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow (timeout 10 seconds) steadyflow.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow/trunk/0.2.0/+download/steadyflow-0.2.0.tar.xz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v steadyflow-0.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm steadyflow.x86_64: I: checking steadyflow.x86_64: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -v steadyflow-debuginfo-0.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm steadyflow-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking steadyflow-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/steadyflow (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Tested on Koji: rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4748011 f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4748018 f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4748043 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
