[Bug 887907] Review Request: fcitx-anthy - Anthy Engine for Fcitx
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887907
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Liang:
- Don't need (-n %{name}-%{version}) in the %setup,
- Please write a detailed list (one per line) of the BuildRequires
- Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT of the %install (This only applies to packages
epel5)
- Remove section %clean (The %clean section is not required for F-13 and
above.)
- Remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) (This only applies to packages epel5)
Now let's review the output rpmlint
fcitx-anthy-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
fcitx-anthy-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
fcitx-anthy-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
- Please, be consistent between the tag release and the changelog
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.2-1 ['0.1.1-1.fc17',
'0.1.1-1']
- FSF postal address is wrong:
Please contact the upstream , to correct it.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/nicola-f.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/fcitx-anthy-0.1.1/COPYING
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/fcitx/anthy/msime.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/tron-dvorak.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/vje-delta.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/fcitx/anthy/canna.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/nicola-j.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/oasys100j.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/tsuki-2-203-106.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/tsuki-2-203-101.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/fcitx/anthy/azik.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/fcitx/anthy/101kana.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/tron-qwerty-jp.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/fcitx/anthy/atok.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/fcitx/anthy/wnn.sty
fcitx-anthy.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/fcitx/anthy/nicola-a.sty
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MC2tbMEEZU&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980 --- Comment #4 from Minh Ngo --- Yes, I'm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SRYzGBrTxD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887543] Review Request: trac-sensitivetickets-plugin - Plugin for Trac that enables sensitive tickets
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887543 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Hey, About the licensing issue: the Fedora Legal page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main) states: "A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include.". So according to our own wiki, it should actually be GPL+. Also, the other things you mentioned should be fixed in this version: Spec: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/trac-sensitivetickets-plugin/trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.spec SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/trac-sensitivetickets-plugin/trac-sensitivetickets-plugin-0.21-0.svn12442.2.fc17.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4798661 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hFtGS3BPFK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883512] Review Request: libforensic1394 - A library for performing live memory forensics over firewire
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883512 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hEayErfyau&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863569] Review Request: log4c - an application message logging library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863569 --- Comment #21 from Joseph Marrero --- František Dvořák: any plan of pushing this into f17? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RCndTawsXF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876404] Review Request: php-channel-aws - Adds the Amazon Web Services channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876404 --- Comment #4 from Joseph Marrero --- old packages in: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/old/* Spec URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-channel-aws.spec SRPM URL: http://marreroj.com/fedora/review-packages/php-channel-aws-1.3-3.fc18.src.rpm I agree with Remi on the version numbers thingy. fixed the two rpmlint issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UcP2YkU448&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883512] Review Request: libforensic1394 - A library for performing live memory forensics over firewire
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883512 --- Comment #6 from Eduardo Echeverria --- Hi Fabian: Please take a copy of the sources of the python bindings during the %prep phase, and configure one subdirectory to build against python 2, another to build against python 3 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Common_SRPM_vs_split_SRPMs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fEYVWKClAv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815990] Review Request: python-paste-deploy1.5 - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815990 Tomas Dabašinskas changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=884807 | CC||rb...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Tomas Dabašinskas --- *** Bug 884807 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=10YQLyzf4b&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 884807] Review Request: python-paste-deploy1.5 - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Product: Fedora EPEL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884807 Tomas Dabašinskas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=815990 | Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-12-17 21:40:14 --- Comment #4 from Tomas Dabašinskas --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 815990 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OjmPR5zmnR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882531] Review Request: mate-file-manager-sendto - Send to plugin for MATE file manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882531 Nelson Marques changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Nelson Marques --- ok looks good, APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KpNYBj14DR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882531] Review Request: mate-file-manager-sendto - Send to plugin for MATE file manager
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882531
--- Comment #4 from Nelson Marques ---
Good job Dan. I have no issues, just a suggestion: while pidgin and gajim
aren't really required during build time, you have two plugins which do not
work correctly without pidgin/gadjim installed. So it would be nice to have
those splitted to sub-packages and add the Requires to pidgin/gadjim so that
they are pulled when users want those installed.
Both of them do have 'expensive' dependencies (runtime), so splitting could be
fun.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
[x]: 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
[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:
"*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/nmarques/882531-mate-file-manager-sendto/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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 /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]
[Bug 884855] Review Request: python-webtest1.3 - Helper to test WSGI applications
Product: Fedora EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884855
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Dabašinskas ---
Please remove python_sitelib macro definition from the top of the spec file as
it's not required for el6.
dist-6E-epel scratch build with python_sitelib removed:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4798549
fedora-review output looks good
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: 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/884855-python-webtest1.3/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: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 245760 bytes in 20 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[!]: 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 requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgco
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #68 from Kevin Fox --- (In reply to comment #67) > (In reply to comment #66) > > Some additions: > > I'd also like to see node.js in EPEL6 > > > > So would I, but it's not going to happen. Node.js requires much newer > dependencies than we have in EPEL 6. Specifically, we need openssl 1.0.1 or > later as well as http_parser 2.0 or later. OpenSSL is a full-stop problem, > since that's carried in the core RHEL 6 and there's no way that Red Hat is > going to rebase that one. We can try to make requests that they backport the > SPDY patches to OpenSSL 1.0.0, but I don't know how successful we would be > there. > It would be a real shame not to ever support EPEL6. Alternately, would it be easier/possible to patch out the SPDY support out of node.js for EPEL6 if that's the only hangup there? I'd be much happier using a slightly less feature-full node.js in production on RHEL6 then I would needing to run an extra Fedora box for a feature I probably won't use. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qk3edZ4CoC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 884855] Review Request: python-webtest1.3 - Helper to test WSGI applications
Product: Fedora EPEL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884855 Tomas Dabašinskas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tdaba...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Tomas Dabašinskas --- starting review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4qsNOKOW0I&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886230] Review Request: php-phpass - Portable password hashing framework for use in PHP applications
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886230 Joseph Marrero changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jmarr...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jmarr...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Joseph Marrero --- rpmlint output: php-phpass.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bcrypt -> crypt, b crypt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. NO real errors found with rpm lint Macros OK Licence OK Installs OK No blockers. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eI24sMbvdZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 884807] Review Request: python-paste-deploy1.5 - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Product: Fedora EPEL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884807 Tomas Dabašinskas changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=815990 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bhgfLY1vkv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815990] Review Request: python-paste-deploy1.5 - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815990 Tomas Dabašinskas changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=884807 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=S4sLZAxSoR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 884807] Review Request: python-paste-deploy1.5 - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Product: Fedora EPEL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884807 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Dabašinskas --- Package already exists in epel: Name: python-paste-deploy1.5 Arch: noarch Version : 1.5.0 Release : 5.el6 Size: 47 k Repo: epel Summary : Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers URL : http://pythonpaste.org/deploy License : MIT Description : This tool provides code to load WSGI applications and servers from : URIs; these URIs can refer to Python Eggs for INI-style configuration : files. PasteScript provides commands to serve applications based on : this configuration file. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-paste-deploy1.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YUUQdI4tVS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ 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 #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-Pimple-1.0.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CFnxOkdvcm&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 884807] Review Request: python-paste-deploy1.5 - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Product: Fedora EPEL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884807 Tomas Dabašinskas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tdaba...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Tomas Dabašinskas --- starting package review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FbcisR46K6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas --- Minh Ngo: Are you still interested in getting chicken-scheme into fedora? The duplicate 819919 has just been closed, non-responsive submitter. I can review if you like. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=37d8iUDKuj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819919] Review Request: chicken-scheme - CHICKEN is a compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819919 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-12-17 20:06:26 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas --- Still following procedure in comment #4: Closing, non-responsive submitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=J3n8ciY9WC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882559] Review Request: mate-file-manager-image-converter - MATE Desktop file manager image converter plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882559 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Dan Mashal --- That was the way leigh packaged MFM 1.5 originally. We can fix that later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2c8FwdVPt9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882531] Review Request: mate-file-manager-sendto - Send to plugin for MATE file manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882531 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Dan Mashal --- Per conversation, putting them into the main package for now. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-file-manager-sendto.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-file-manager-sendto-1.5.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop file manager send to plugin. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=s7MJemLePZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842509] Review Request: libdbusmenu - A helper library for libindicator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842509 --- Comment #20 from Adam Williamson --- Mario: there isn't really a _painless_ way to build for both gtk2 and gtk3, but it's possible. Basically you have to create two build directories and build / install it twice. libindicator itself does this, so you can just look at the libindicator spec for tips on how to get it done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5dl3is3bs6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883512] Review Request: libforensic1394 - A library for performing live memory forensics over firewire
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883512
--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> - In the devel subpackage %{name} = %{version}-%{release} has to be
> %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} to match the correct architecture
Fixed
> - The python bindings subpackage should be renamed to python3-forensic1394.
> - in the README can be read
Changed
> "Python language bindings are provided in the python/ directory and
> are compatible with all versions of Python since 2.5 (including
> Python 3)"
> so it should provide a subpackage built with python2-devel in addition to
> the existing python3 bindings
Python2 subpackage added
> - although the subpackage devel included documentation and not the main one.
> there's a lot of documentation, (358400 bytes in 49 files), IMO I consider
> should be putting it into a -doc subpackage.
>
> - The "Provides" of python bindings subpackage, it is not picked up
> automatically while building the package
Fixed
(In reply to comment #2)
> > %files
> > %doc AUTHORS COPYING COPYING.LESSER README
>
> > %files devel
> > %doc COPYING COPYING.LESSER docs/docs/html
>
> >%files -n python-%{s_name}
> > %doc COPYING COPYING.LESSER
fixed
Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4798095
rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop11 SRPMS]$ rpmlint libforensic1394-0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm
libforensic1394.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) firewire -> fire wire,
fire-wire, firewater
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[fab@laptop11 x86_64]$ rpmlint *forensic*
libforensic1394.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) firewire -> fire wire,
fire-wire, firewater
python2-forensic1394.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-forensic1394.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
%changelog
* Mon Dec 10 2012 Fabian Affolter - 0.2-2
- python2 package added
- -devel subpackage requires: fixed
- License files from the subpackages removed
- python 3 subpackage renamed
- Docs generation changed
Updated files:
Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libforensic1394.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/libforensic1394-0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EnOVhrVPlZ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851813] Review Request: emerald - Themeable window decorator and compositing manager for Compiz Fusion
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851813 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- f19 scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4797975 http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7976/4797976/emerald-0.8.8-4.fc19.src.rpm Let's geet reeeaady for rvieeew -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u2wwVFmZA8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851811] Review Request: compizconfig-python - Python bindings for the Compiz Configuration System
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851811 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Successful scratch build f19. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4797926 srpm link: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7927/4797927/compizconfig-python-0.8.4-6.fc19.src.rpm Ready to rumble :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZgHQO9wQKR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851809] Review Request: compizconfig-backend-mateconf - MateConf backend for compizconfig
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851809 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Successful scratch build f19. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4797399 srpm link: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7400/4797400/compizconfig-backend-mateconf-0.8.8-5.fc19.src.rpm Ready for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5khwGgqn9x&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785479] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Constraint - Horde Constraint library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785479 --- Comment #11 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #9) > = SHOULD items = > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Disregard this comment. I was looking for a license file labeled LICENSE, but the license text is included in the COPYING file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SiHnz2St8k&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785480] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Log - Horde Logging library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785480 --- Comment #9 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to comment #8) > = SHOULD items = > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Disregard this comment. I was looking for a license file labeled LICENSE, but the license text is included in the COPYING file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7eiJ4iPmvN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887611] Review Request: vdr-vnsiserver - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887611 --- Comment #3 from Till Bubeck --- Thanks for your feedback, which is reflected in an updated version: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bubeck/vdr-vnsiserver.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bubeck/vdr-vnsiserver-0.9.0-0.1.20121216git14a1fe5c58.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IBlrOhzteO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851805] Review Request: compiz-plugins-unsupported - Additional plugins for Compiz
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851805 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Successful scratch build f19. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4797388 srpm link: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7389/4797389/compiz-plugins-unsupported-0.8.8-4.fc19.src.rpm Ready for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XppHPgeTeV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879365] Review Request: system-config-network - network administration tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879365
--- Comment #5 from Bill Nottingham ---
%description
This is %{?with_gui:the GUI of }the network configuration tool,
supporting Ethernet, Wireless, TokenRing, ADSL, ISDN and PPP.
%if %{with gui}
%package tui
Summary: Network Administration Tool TUI
Group: Applications/System
%endif
Requires: initscripts
Requires: usermode
Requires: rpm-python
Requires: newt-python
Requires: pciutils
Requires: usermode
Requires: dbus-python
Requires: python-ethtool
Requires: python-iwlib
This construct is causing the Requires: for the TUI to be added to the
description, not the package - the conditional requires need to be in the main
body of the spec.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zxJD2nrkco&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851804] Review Request: compiz-plugins-extra - Additional Compiz Fusion plugins for Compiz
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851804 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Successful scratch build f19. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4797362 srpm link: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7363/4797363/compiz-plugins-extra-0.8.8-4.fc19.src.rpm Ready for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TPq56l7ILd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876995] Review Request: gtkspell3 - On-the-fly spell checking for GtkTextView widgets
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876995 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- gtkspell3-3.0.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zwe5GWPu79&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876995] Review Request: gtkspell3 - On-the-fly spell checking for GtkTextView widgets
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876995 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L8IfgHuAq0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Math-Libm-1.00-6.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xtSNLaL6eJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MoBJZKmMmY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851812] Review Request: compiz-manager - A wrapper script to start compiz with proper options
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851812 --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Package builds on rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4797329 scratch build srpm link: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7330/4797330/compiz-manager-0.6.0-16.fc19.src.rpm Starting point: Spec URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SPEC/compiz-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SRPM/compiz-manager-0.6.0-16.fc19.src.rpm Ready to review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lInY4fBPRK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887981] New: Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Duration - Format and parse DateTime::Durations
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887981 Bug ID: 887981 Summary: Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Duration - Format and parse DateTime::Durations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-DateTime-Format-Duration/ SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-DateTime-Format-Duration/perl-DateTime-Format-Duration-1.03-1.a.fc17.src.rpm Description: This module formats and parses DateTime::Duration objects as well as other durations representations. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar This package will go into Fedora ≥ 17. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MVyGtvvhYf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882559] Review Request: mate-file-manager-image-converter - MATE Desktop file manager image converter plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882559 --- Comment #2 from Nelson Marques --- Dan, I'm going to give a +1 to this package, but first I need you clarify 2 things for me: 1) BuildRequires: mate-file-manager-devel mate-file-manager-extensions, since the -extensions and -devel originate from the same sources why isn't -devel pulling the extensions (ex: through a Requires)? This would be in my opinion a good practice. 2) The style on the spec in different from previous packages; This isn't for sure an issue, so there's no big deal with this. If you believe 1) can be improved, it would be nice; otherwise, if no one else objects, I let it slip in. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6W40LddYDk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882559] Review Request: mate-file-manager-image-converter - MATE Desktop file manager image converter plugin
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882559
Nelson Marques changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nmo.marq...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nmo.marq...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Nelson Marques ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[-]: 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
[-]: 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:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nmarques/882559-mate-
file-manager-image-converter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package 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 /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query 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
--re
[Bug 887911] Review Request: libigtl - Free, open-source network communication library for image-guided therapy
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887911 Eric Christensen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@christensenplace.us --- Comment #4 from Eric Christensen --- Spec file URL doesn't resolve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PoGJodyGqm&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882531] Review Request: mate-file-manager-sendto - Send to plugin for MATE file manager
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882531
--- Comment #2 from Nelson Marques ---
Dan,
%files libs
%doc AUTHORS COPYING README
%{_libdir}/caja-sendto/plugins/libnstburn.so
%{_libdir}/caja-sendto/plugins/libnstemailclient.so
%{_libdir}/caja-sendto/plugins/libnstgajim.so
%{_libdir}/caja-sendto/plugins/libnstpidgin.so
%{_libdir}/caja-sendto/plugins/libnstremovable_devices.so
%{_libdir}/caja-sendto/plugins/libnstupnp.so
%{_libdir}/caja/extensions-2.0/libcaja-sendto.so
This files are not standard public libraries (they even don't provide a
soname), instead they are internal shared objects, which you can call
'plugins'; We do not expect foreign applications to link against them.
So I would recommend you call the package plugins and not 'libs' as they aren't
in my opinion what we would call a public library.
Do you agree?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dytKc8zYDn&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882531] Review Request: mate-file-manager-sendto - Send to plugin for MATE file manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882531 Nelson Marques changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nmo.marq...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nmo.marq...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GUJ022f8ua&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887911] Review Request: libigtl - Free, open-source network communication library for image-guided therapy
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887911
--- Comment #3 from Mario Ceresa ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (openigtlink-OpenIGTLink-00c007f.tar.gz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if avail
[Bug 887911] Review Request: libigtl - Free, open-source network communication library for image-guided therapy
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887911 --- Comment #2 from Mario Ceresa --- Fixed several errors pointed out by fedora-review: http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/libigtl-1.9.7-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kGuoEGf4CM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403
--- Comment #31 from Ismael Olea ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> I was referring to the Tmate AND ASL 1.1 dual licensing.
>
> It was not apparent to me why the ASL.1.1 was required.
I see. I just reused from the previous spec.
Doing a license auditory I get all ASL licesed code is related with nailgun
code included at svnkit-test/ which I'm not packaging in any way. It can
checked with:
find -name *java -exec egrep -H "(Version 1.1|Version 2.0)" {} \;
and comparing to:
find -name *java -exec egrep -H "(Version 1.1|Version 2.0)" {} \;|grep -v
svnkit-test
So definitely I left the TMate license and added both ASL 1.1 and 2.2 as
included in SRPM only
http://olea.org/tmp/omegat-fedora-feature/svnkit.spec (r. 1.7.6-5)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4mUjLXIzae&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887911] Review Request: libigtl - Free, open-source network communication library for image-guided therapy
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887911 --- Comment #1 from Mario Ceresa --- Builds in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796930 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=crfsiaeISw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879365] Review Request: system-config-network - network administration tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879365 --- Comment #4 from Nils Philippsen --- (In reply to comment #3) > That's a little goofy how you conditionalized the build, but it seems > allowable. Heh, I can unroll the stuff if you like that better :-). > You should obsolete system-config-network-tui in the new package, though. Ugh, right. Here are the updated spec file and SRPM: https://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/system-config-network.git/plain/system-config-network.spec?id=330c2d90ef7e4e2e2bd9d14f9f1fc377054a1736 http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6988/4796988/system-config-network-1.6.8-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gPqbxa05My&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887913] New: Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887913 Bug ID: 887913 Summary: Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: m...@hroncok.cz Spec URL: https://github.com/hroncok/SPECS/raw/master/perl-Math-Clipper.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/perl-Math-Clipper-1.15-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Clipper is a C++ (and Delphi) library that implements polygon clipping. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=w8Iz2MhO3X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887911] New: Review Request: libigtl - Free, open-source network communication library for image-guided therapy
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887911 Bug ID: 887911 Summary: Review Request: libigtl - Free, open-source network communication library for image-guided therapy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: mrcer...@gmail.com Spec URL: https://github.com/mrceresa/fedora_medical/blob/master/libopenigtlink/libopenigt.spec SRPM URL: http://mrceresa.fedorapeople.org/libigtl-1.9.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: OpenIGTLink provides a standardized mechanism for communications among computers and devices in operating rooms (OR) for wide variety of image-guided therapy (IGT) applications. Examples of such applications include: * Stereotactic surgical guidance using optical position sensor. * Intraoperative image guidance using real-time MRI. * Robot-assisted intervention using robotic device and surgical planning software OpenIGTLink is a set of digital messaging formats and rules (protocol) used for data exchange on a local area network (LAN). The specification of OpenIGTLink and its reference implementation, the OpenIGTLink Library, are available free of charge for any purpose including commercial use. An OpenIGTLink interface is available in popular medical image processing and visualization software 3D Slicer. Fedora Account System Username: mrceresa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZluTJkfA8x&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880195] Review Request: python-di - Dependency injection library for python unittesters
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880195 Martin Sivák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-17 10:27:51 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cjlaj5FHYF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887846] Review Request: perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi - Compute Voronoi diagrams from sets of points
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887846 --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- Spec URL: https://github.com/hroncok/SPECS/raw/master/perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi-1.3-6.fc17.src.rpm - Removed accidentally added BRs (I've mixed two spec files) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lESzBDvjxO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886492] Review Request: openslides - Presentation and assembly system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886492 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge --- Mario, thank you very much for this quick review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openslides Short Description: Presentation and assembly system Owners: mrunge Branches: f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4MXFX3t1Sw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887907] New: Review Request: fcitx-anthy - Anthy Engine for Fcitx
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887907 Bug ID: 887907 Summary: Review Request: fcitx-anthy - Anthy Engine for Fcitx Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: liangsuil...@gmail.com SRPM: http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/fcitx/fcitx-anthy-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://liangsuilong.fedorapeople.org/fcitx/fcitx-anthy.spec Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796846 Description: Fcitx-anthy is a Anthy engine wrapper for Fcitx. It Provides Japanese input method from anthy. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tv5hNC3Zq0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886164] Review Request: python-dogpile-cache - A caching front-end based on the Dogpile lock.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886164 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- Buildroot overrides have been created for python-dogpile-core which should make this easier to build/test. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zjNTYBHRD5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886857] Review Request: rubygem-rainbow - Ruby String class extension enabling coloring text on ANSI terminals
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886857 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3eo5zi7sfm&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886221] Review Request: python-dogpile-core - A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886221 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-dogpile-core-0.4.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dogpile-core-0.4.0-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xpTIzBe4oB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886221] Review Request: python-dogpile-core - A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886221 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-dogpile-core-0.4.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dogpile-core-0.4.0-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XNkx1J9xeH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886221] Review Request: python-dogpile-core - A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886221 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-dogpile-core-0.4.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dogpile-core-0.4.0-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4Gx0hP7xci&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886221] Review Request: python-dogpile-core - A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886221 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jgTeIe1s4W&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887846] Review Request: perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi - Compute Voronoi diagrams from sets of points
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887846 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to comment #1) > This shouldn't be necessary, as it's part of the standard buildroot. E.g. > gcc requires glibc-devel. Removed. > Why are these included? Doesn't rpmbuild find them? Sorry, I forgot to remove them. Spec URL: https://github.com/hroncok/SPECS/raw/master/perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi-1.3-5.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NZGeH1aasJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874249] Review Request: rubygem-inifile - INI file reader and writer
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874249
--- Comment #6 from Darryl L. Pierce ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> For -1.1:
>
> * Versioning
> - Please don't use ".1" for release unless needed.
> Please use just integer (and %{?dist})
> c.f.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
>
> * License
> - README.md says that this is under MIT.
Fixed.
> * Documentation
> - Current ruby guideline says test/ directory should not be
> shipped in binary rpm
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/
> Ruby#Running_test_suites
Hrm, that should be in the -doc package. Looking in the packages built the test
directory is with the docs, per the specfile.
> - Also, "Rakefile" is something like Makefile, which is usually not
> not needed for binary rpm.
Same here.
> * Enabling test suite
> - As this package contains test/ directory, please execute
> some tests in %check (like ruby -Ilib test/test_inifile.rb)
Their tests require a separate gem be installed called bones. I would prefer
not to package that as it's not useful to me and isn't a runtime requirement
for inifile.
Updated SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-inifile.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-inifile-2.0.2-1.2.fc17.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796678
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fTWgLWnHbr&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886857] Review Request: rubygem-rainbow - Ruby String class extension enabling coloring text on ANSI terminals
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886857 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Josef Stribny --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rainbow Short Description: Ruby String class extension enabling coloring text on ANSI terminals Owners: jstribny Branches: InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1Tr2639mki&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403 --- Comment #30 from Brendan Jones --- (In reply to comment #29) > > - A simply comment explaining the license breakdown > > I did it with: > > # just in SRPM due to nailgun.jar comes included in svnkit sources: > Source3:LICENSE-2.0.txt > > is it not clear enough? :-m I was referring to the Tmate AND ASL 1.1 dual licensing. It was not apparent to me why the ASL.1.1 was required. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OYEzVVUKVO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886221] Review Request: python-dogpile-core - A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886221 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iS4zNcGWik&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886221] Review Request: python-dogpile-core - A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886221 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-dogpile-core Short Description: A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution. Owners: ralph Branches: f18 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lBioUZ2gNT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883478] Review Request: python-logging-tree - Introspect and display the logger tree inside "logging"
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883478
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean ---
Hm. If you yum install python3 before inspecting the spec and srpm, the issue
goes away (it is that %{__python3} doesn't exist on your machine.)
Can you verify that that fixes the issue for you?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eHVg9J7KYg&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770534] Review Request: rubygem-imagesize - Measure image size(GIF, PNG, JPEG ,,, etc)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770534 Darryl L. Pierce changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Darryl L. Pierce --- (In reply to comment #4) > Would you summarize the current blocking issue on this review request? > > For license, as setup.rb is not included in binary rpm, "GPLv2 or Ruby" > is enough for this (will be changed in the next update) (also setup.rb > is something like configure or so, which we usually don't take care of > for license issue). As README explicitly specifies the license for > this gem, I think there is no license issue for this. Okay, I was asking for an explicit license file to make clear how the code is released. If it's going to be fixed in the next update, then I approve the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=c3BWrj6lpM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874105] Review Request: qpid-proton - Proton is a high performance, lightweight messaging library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874105
--- Comment #7 from Darryl L. Pierce ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> For -2.1:
>
> * Versioning
> - Please don't use ".1" for release unless needed.
> Please use just integer (and %{?dist})
> c.f.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
I'm following the pattern lower down where point releases are mentioned.
> * Dependency between subpackage.
> - As said before, usually dependency between subpackage must be
> _full_ (Epoch)-Version-"Release" and isa specific (i.e.
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} )
Done.
> * Directory ownership issue
> - %{_includedir} itself is already owned by filesystem and
> should not be owned by qpid-proton-devel.
Oops, done.
> * Enabling test suite
> - I missed this before, however as the source tarball
> contains tests/ directory, please do some tests
> in %check if possible.
The tests require, ATM, a little bit of setup in order to run them. I'll take
upstream a request to make tests easier to run in the packaging environment
Update SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-proton.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-proton-0.2-2.2.fc17.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796610
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RpchRQRFlG&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887846] Review Request: perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi - Compute Voronoi diagrams from sets of points
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887846 Trond H. Amundsen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t.h.amund...@usit.uio.no --- Comment #1 from Trond H. Amundsen --- > BuildRequires: glibc-devel This shouldn't be necessary, as it's part of the standard buildroot. E.g. gcc requires glibc-devel. > Requires: perl(Class::Accessor) > Requires: perl(List::Util) > Requires: perl(Params::Validate) > Requires: perl(Scalar::Util) > Requires: perl(XSLoader) Why are these included? Doesn't rpmbuild find them? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TNpG7vAmO4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Math-Libm-1.00-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Math-Libm-1.00-6.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=q5uiEt8VcH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Math-Libm-1.00-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Math-Libm-1.00-6.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KiCUa8xKpP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mft5QGaoRO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403 --- Comment #29 from Ismael Olea --- (In reply to comment #26) > > Other MUST issues: > > - exit 1 in %prep when unxepected jars or class files found (as per > Stanislav' comment) fixed > - You only need to install the license file once if the sub-package > requires the base-package where it is present. fixed > - A simply comment explaining the license breakdown I did it with: # just in SRPM due to nailgun.jar comes included in svnkit sources: Source3:LICENSE-2.0.txt is it not clear enough? :-m > - Your commented link to the maven pom is wrong. IF you haven't edited the > pm file there's no reason why you can't just use the direct link for Source1: It's edited, but fixed the URL > - remove bindir comment in %files section fixed http://olea.org/tmp/omegat-fedora-feature/svnkit.spec http://olea.org/tmp/omegat-fedora-feature/svnkit-1.7.6-4.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oERY8MNVcp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887846] New: Review Request: perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi - Compute Voronoi diagrams from sets of points
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887846 Bug ID: 887846 Summary: Review Request: perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi - Compute Voronoi diagrams from sets of points Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: m...@hroncok.cz Spec URL: https://github.com/hroncok/SPECS/raw/master/perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/perl-Math-Geometry-Voronoi-1.3-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: This module computes Voronoi diagrams from a set of input points. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mQPBo4aBzV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880195] Review Request: python-di - Dependency injection library for python unittesters
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880195 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5Ebre6wl0K&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BlHpGuQPXX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877765] Review Request: perl-Math-Libm - Perl extension for the C math library, libm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877765 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Math-Libm Short Description: Perl extension for the C math library, libm Owners: churchyard Branches: f17 f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rqqnE0jSo1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871092] Review Request: updf - Application to write to PDF
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092 --- Comment #38 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to comment #37) > source(In reply to comment #31) > > If you follow > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers > > to step 2.1.8 you could submit a scratch build in the Fedora Build System. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4791786 Can I consider completed this package review ? Are there additional comments ? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bu8ZGFS0Pq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886857] Review Request: rubygem-rainbow - Ruby String class extension enabling coloring text on ANSI terminals
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886857 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer --- Sound good to me, approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JUTLyI73Kb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880195] Review Request: python-di - Dependency injection library for python unittesters
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880195 Martin Sivák changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Martin Sivák --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-di Short Description: Dependency injection library for python unittesters Owners: msivak Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tUfaHbU6zN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887821] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bonding - Nagios plugin to monitor Linux bonding interfaces
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887821 --- Comment #1 from Trond H. Amundsen --- Scratch-build for f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796437 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XXY8EkPWIL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886257] Review Request: fedora-upgrade - Upgrade Fedora to next version using yum upgrade
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886257 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-upgrade-18.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-upgrade-18.5-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4H57RFiDHp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886257] Review Request: fedora-upgrade - Upgrade Fedora to next version using yum upgrade
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886257 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-upgrade-18.5-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-upgrade-18.5-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XJVGyWXHBC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887821] New: Review Request: nagios-plugins-bonding - Nagios plugin to monitor Linux bonding interfaces
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887821 Bug ID: 887821 Summary: Review Request: nagios-plugins-bonding - Nagios plugin to monitor Linux bonding interfaces Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: t.h.amund...@usit.uio.no Spec URL: http://folk.uio.no/trondham/review/nagios-plugins-bonding.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.uio.no/trondham/review/nagios-plugins-bonding-1.3.2-1.el6.src.rpm Description: This package contains check_linux_bonding, which is a plugin for Nagios that checks bonding network interfaces on Linux. The plugin will report any interfaces that are down (both masters and slaves), as well as other aspects which may point to a problem with bonded interfaces. Fedora Account System Username: trondham -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=a7XCABTZZW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880763] Review Request: AudioCuesheetEditor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880763 --- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt --- It fails because you BuildRequires are incomplete. At least "gtk-sharp2-devel" is missing. In turn, the pkg-config based check in the configure script fails: # repoquery --whatprovides 'pkgconfig(glade-sharp-2.0)' gtk-sharp2-devel-0:2.12.11-6.fc18.i686 gtk-sharp2-devel-0:2.12.11-6.fc18.x86_64 Or also: # repoquery --whatprovides \*glade-sharp-2.0.pc gtk-sharp2-devel-0:2.12.11-6.fc18.i686 gtk-sharp2-devel-0:2.12.11-6.fc18.x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pbfBBU8jFv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886857] Review Request: rubygem-rainbow - Ruby String class extension enabling coloring text on ANSI terminals
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886857 --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny --- Adjusted as suggested by Vit: Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-rainbow.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-rainbow-1.1.4-2.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796344 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vMkucD6EPr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880763] Review Request: AudioCuesheetEditor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880763 --- Comment #10 from Sven Baus --- (In reply to comment #9) > Sven, at which step of the following process are you? > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers > > Have you tried to submit a scratch build in the Fedora Build System yet? No, I have not. Currently I'm trying to get the package build on my local system for testing purposes. Afterwards I would go on. I'm now checking why build from source on some system fails with the errors mentioned above. Maybe version 0.2.1 is a able to build, then I would just go on with version 0.2.1 (which is almost done) ;). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MuQ9FRKVvD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882765] Review Request: wikindx - Free bibliographic and quotations/notes management and article authoring system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882765 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is an artifact from older Fedora versions. It is only needed for EPEL 5. If you don't plan to maintain such a branch, remove that line. Requires: mysql-server httpd php php-adodb httpd is a recursive dependency of php (and I'm sure this won't change in the future) so that httpd can be removed safely. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=algUWWDJiw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785476] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Serialize - Data Encapulation API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785476 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Please update to 2.0.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=o2gUbWcrHx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785481] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Wbxml - API for encoding and decoding WBXML documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785481 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Please update to 2.0.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MFu5rgyni4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883478] Review Request: python-logging-tree - Introspect and display the logger tree inside "logging"
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883478 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Alias||python-logging-tree Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- Your Koji build was outdated, here's the new one: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4796270 $ rpmlint -i -v *python3-logging-tree.noarch: I: checking python3-logging-tree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getLogger -> get Logger, get-logger, blogger The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python3-logging-tree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setLevel -> set Level, set-level, settle The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python3-logging-tree.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/logging_tree (timeout 10 seconds) python3-logging-tree.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. python-logging-tree.src: I: checking python-logging-tree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getLogger -> get Logger, get-logger, blogger The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-logging-tree.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setLevel -> set Level, set-level, settle The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-logging-tree.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/logging_tree (timeout 10 seconds) python-logging-tree.src: E: specfile-error sh: line 0: fg: no job control This error occurred when rpmlint used rpm to query the specfile. The error is output by rpm and the message should contain more information. python-logging-tree.noarch: I: checking python-logging-tree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getLogger -> get Logger, get-logger, blogger The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-logging-tree.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setLevel -> set Level, set-level, settle The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-logging-tree.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/logging_tree (timeout 10 seconds) python-logging-tree.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. python-logging-tree.spec: E: specfile-error sh: line 0: fg: no job control This error occurred when rpmlint used rpm to query the specfile. The error is output by rpm and the message should contain more information. 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Some spelling errors and no docs, nothing worth to discuss... But one issue: specfile-error sh: line 0: fg: no job control The first line in your spec causes this error. In most cases it is to be blamed to an undefined macro which cannot be parsed by rpm. Could be that your definitions at the beginning of your spec won't be expanded correctly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=07SOnwZIlo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887778] Review Request: cutter - A Unit Testing Framework for C
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887778 HAYASHI Kentaro changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iZaGOhoryQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887778] New: Review Request: cutter - A Unit Testing Framework for C
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887778 Bug ID: 887778 Summary: Review Request: cutter - A Unit Testing Framework for C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: ken...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cutter/files/tmp/cutter.spec SRPM URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cutter/files/tmp/cutter-1.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Cutter is a xUnit family Unit Testing Framework for C. Cutter provides easy to write test and easy to debug code environment. Fedora Account System Username: kenhys Hi, I am a member of Cutter projects (http://cutter.sourceforge.net/), and I had released Cutter a few times ever. Cutter provides RPM packages for Fedora 17 (and CentOS 5 or CentOS 6) by cutter repositories, but It is a time to migrate maintance and release process into Fedora project, I think. This is the first time, I have posted package review request. Here is the result of rpmlint -i: $ rpmlint -i cutter-1.2.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm|grep E (Nothing, No errors) $ rpmlint -i cutter-1.2.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm|grep W cutter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xUnit -> x Unit, unit cutter.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/cutter/cutter/cut-test-iterator.h cutter.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libcutter.pc cutter.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/cutter/cutter.h cutter.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/cutter/cutter/cut-test-utils.h ... There are many warning but classified into two types ones. The first spelling-error is false detection, the seconds one and followings are derived from cutter package does not provide -devel package. (This is same as cxxtest package style) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nMUxULWSfI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886164] Review Request: python-dogpile-cache - A caching front-end based on the Dogpile lock.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886164 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-dogpile-cache Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wimKkx6NBq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886221] Review Request: python-dogpile-core - A 'dogpile' lock, typically used as a component of a larger caching solution
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886221
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Alias||python-dogpile-core
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *python3-dogpile-core.noarch: I: checking
python3-dogpile-core.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/dogpile.core (timeout 10 seconds)
python-dogpile-core.src: I: checking
python-dogpile-core.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/dogpile.core (timeout 10 seconds)
python-dogpile-core.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/dogpile.core/dogpile.core-0.4.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-dogpile-core.noarch: I: checking
python-dogpile-core.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/dogpile.core (timeout 10 seconds)
python-dogpile-core.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/dogpile.core/dogpile.core-0.4.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Looks fine.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
BSD
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
e8f1f978ec1cd5f5ac568fcfed6625ef1fff08f0a1c028a326b47c6b465016e1
dogpile.core-0.4.0.tar.gz
e8f1f978ec1cd5f5ac568fcfed6625ef1fff08f0a1c028a326b47c6b465016e1
dogpile.core-0.4.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently
[Bug 886908] Review Request: xonotic-data - Game data for the Xonotic first person shooter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to comment #1) > The following elements are no longer necessary, unless you're going for > EPEL: Clean section, the first rm in the install section, buildroot > definition and defattr. I assume the package will go in EPEL 5, because Nexuiz is already there and EPEL 5 provides all the needed dependencies as far as I can see. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W4Lr8zz9K6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
