[Bug 891125] Review Request: zathura-djvu - DjVu support for zathura
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891125 François Cami changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from François Cami --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: zathura-djvu Short Description: DjVu support for zathura Owners: fcami psabata Branches: f18 f17 f16 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=ic05OQWsKc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891125] Review Request: zathura-djvu - DjVu support for zathura
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891125 François Cami changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ | Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from François Cami --- Thank 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=l9pnlD5INe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891179] nodejs-async - Higher-order functions and common patterns for asynchronous code
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891179 T.C. Hollingsworth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-async Short Description: Higher-order functions and common patterns for asynchronous code Owners: patches Branches: 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=TBPKQO5DVS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891231] nodejs-rimraf - A deep deletion module for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891231 T.C. Hollingsworth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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=ijbUc9xEmf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891231] nodejs-rimraf - A deep deletion module for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891231 --- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-rimraf Short Description: A deep deletion module for Node.js Owners: patches Branches: 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=IT0L9bKaFG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891206] nodejs-mkdirp - Recursively mkdir, like `mkdir -p`
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891206 T.C. Hollingsworth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-mkdir Short Description: Recursively create a full path of directories Owners: patches Branches: 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=9qyYChNysv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891206] nodejs-mkdirp - Recursively mkdir, like `mkdir -p`
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891206 --- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth --- Thanks for the review! Reviews for tap & friends should be filed soon. -- 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=lQrz0OBra3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891125] Review Request: zathura-djvu - DjVu support for zathura
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891125
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Builds in mock:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849100
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849124
> Thanks to you both.
You're welcome.
- The .so warning is about the libraries being unversioned, but this are
private libs, Since you don't install them in ld path, this is OK.
- The warnings about the spelling errors can be ignored
- zathura-djvu.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 11)
Please fix these cosmetics errors, before importing
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
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.
x86 & x86_64 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849124
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/djvu/891125-zathura-djvu/licensecheck.txt
* in the file LICENSE, you can see that the license is under zlib
* Similarly, it is verifiable with the licensecheck command
[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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #83 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- (In reply to comment #82) > (In reply to comment #77) > > Any particular reason to not build in F17 ? > > +1 > Could we please have F17 too? > > And maybe even for F16 - though close to EOL now. Around comment #30 I got some dependencies of packages that doesn't exist on F17. I read somewhere in this report , for have nodejs in F17 we need drop some features -- 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=L75DrHSRcD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #82 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to comment #77) > Any particular reason to not build in F17 ? +1 Could we please have F17 too? And maybe even for F16 - though close to EOL now. -- 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=CH0Q9T2121&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 #19 from Fedora Update System --- libforensic1394-0.2-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libforensic1394-0.2-4.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=fbfFBw8QCx&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 #18 from Fedora Update System --- libforensic1394-0.2-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libforensic1394-0.2-4.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=xzqIIiwHLH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891206] nodejs-mkdirp - Recursively mkdir, like `mkdir -p`
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891206 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer --- As said on others bug, EL5 construct can be kept , and check will be added later due to bootstrap issues. So 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=egUJzL1WXf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891230] nodejs-retry - Retry strategies for failed operations
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891230 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer --- Seems the license is missing : License:FIXME It seems to be MIT, if I am not wrong. -- 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=N9m7amoIfk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891231] nodejs-rimraf - A deep deletion module for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891231 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer --- Ok so 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=L2Upu0FdDY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893200] Review Request: valyriatear - Valyria Tear is a free 2D J-RPG based on the Hero of Allacrost engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893200 Juan Manuel Rodriguez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nus...@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nus...@fedoraproject.org -- 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=LgZe6UXMx0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893200] New: Review Request: valyriatear - Valyria Tear is a free 2D J-RPG based on the Hero of Allacrost engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893200 Bug ID: 893200 Summary: Review Request: valyriatear - Valyria Tear is a free 2D J-RPG based on the Hero of Allacrost engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: ablu.erikschill...@googlemail.com Spec URL: http://ablu.fedorapeople.org/valyriatear.spec SRPM URL: http://ablu.fedorapeople.org/valyriatear-0.5.0-0.1rc2.fc17.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: ablu Description: Valyria Tear is a free (as meant in the Gnu Public License) 2D J-RPG game based on the Hero of Allacrost engine. You can play it very much like a typical console role-playing game. You can explore maps and talk to non-playable characters (NPCs), fight active-time battles against multiple enemies, and manage your characters and equipment through a series of menus. Valyria Tear runs in a series of "game modes" which represent different states of operation in the game. Rpmlint: valyriatear.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Valyria -> Valeria, Variably valyriatear.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Valyria -> Valeria, Variably valyriatear.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/valyriatear-0.5.0/COPYING valyriatear.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Valyria -> Valeria, Variably valyriatear.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Valyria -> Valeria, Variably valyriatear-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Valyria -> Valeria, Variably valyriatear-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. I reported the incorrect-fsf-address to upstream and they fixed it. Sadly no koji build since it takes very long to upload (somehow uploading to koji is even slower than regular upload). But i tested with mock. Regards Erik -- 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=bfGnA0Anoj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887913] Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887913 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psab...@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(psab...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #12 from Petr Šabata --- I can only speak for myself :) Always build for the rawhide first to avoid unintentional upgrade path breakage. Although unusual, I suppose building older versions of the module for older Fedora releases wouldn't violate any packaging rules. It's similar to patching the package to work with the older dependencies present there. -- 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=YYVQKd9wbY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876399] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default - Set of useful typemaps
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876399 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=FVmJxJxSL3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876399] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default - Set of useful typemaps
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876399 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default-1.01-3.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=ggLai49vQO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889400] Review Request: php-PHPParser - A PHP parser written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889400 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=Z4jDaH9385&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889400] Review Request: php-PHPParser - A PHP parser written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889400 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-PHPParser-0.9.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E96II6BR6S&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885291] Review Request: netsed - A tool to modify network packets
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885291 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=aTvcaTwm9L&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885291] Review Request: netsed - A tool to modify network packets
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885291 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- netsed-1.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=S8isN0yk21&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 #17 from Fedora Update System --- libforensic1394-0.2-3.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=nw2qtbg75F&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 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=DhkMmuJFCS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875150] Review Request: MariaDB - An enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150 Tom Lane changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(t...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #17 from Tom Lane --- (In reply to comment #16) > Tom, do you remember if there is a reason to run the tests in %build section? The reason I've historically run mysql's regression tests (and also postgresql's) in the %build part is that %check is misdesigned: it runs the checks only after the %install section, so that a lot of work is wasted if the regression test fails. I might be willing to tolerate that and use %check if it actually did anything useful, like say if rpmbuild had an option to control whether to run the %check part or not. Since it doesn't, and we have to roll our own support for that anyhow (cf %runselftest in these specfiles), I find %check to be completely useless and best ignored. YMMV of course. -- 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=lEycLYR3K3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890733] Review Request: mkproject - make project skeletons
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890733 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- mkproject-0.4.6-3.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=xOoS2vMvQc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890733] Review Request: mkproject - make project skeletons
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890733 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=Vhf6l6PHag&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875150] Review Request: MariaDB - An enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Honza Horak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(t...@redhat.com)
--- Comment #16 from Honza Horak ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> 5.5.28-4 -> 5.5.28a-4
>
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Looking at the README and the result of fedora-review's licensecheck
> (will attach) it seems there could be also LGPLv2 and/or BSD licensed files.
> Could you check it ?
>
> [!]: Final provides and requires are sane.
> I think you should remove all occurrences of %{epoch}, because it's
> undefined:
> # rpm -qp --provides mariadb-5.5.28a-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm
> mysql = %{epoch}:5.5.28a-4.fc18
These are mistakes -- I'll fix them in the next round.
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> Shouldn't the tests be run in %check instead of %build ?
Tom, do you remember if there is a reason to run the tests in %build section?
--
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=TS6yQqpP8I&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #8 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=PmKBGE9oKg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887756] Review Request: lv2-triceratops - An LV2 polyphonic synthesizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887756 Yannick Brosseau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yannick.bross...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yannick.bross...@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=JMKy0MYram&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846488] Review Request: babeltrace - Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846488 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@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=Bjbnt8dCmY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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=ZdQMYKgk4p&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Moschny --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lua-lgi Short Description: Lua bindings to GObject libraries Owners: thm Branches: f16 f17 f18 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=t925IpHvhP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891179] nodejs-async - Higher-order functions and common patterns for asynchronous code
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891179
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Minor issues, so package is approved. Just do not forget to fix the url of the
module.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- EL5 isms, requested by packager
- Url is wrong http://github.com/caolan/async/issues , should be
http://github.com/caolan/async
- no %check, not blocking as seen on others bugs as this is required for
bootstrapping
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: Sour
[Bug 891179] nodejs-async - Higher-order functions and common patterns for asynchronous code
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891179 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org 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=pqEYShyOUi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892988] Review Request: linenoise - Minimal replacement for readline
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892988 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=DaHGvaaZHl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892988] Review Request: linenoise - Minimal replacement for readline
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892988
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Iguess the remaining issue are easy to fix, you need to send patches upstream,
and ask for a license. Not sure if upstream will comply, but since that's not
blocking, I approve the package.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues
- patches do not have a link to upstream bugtracker
- no license shipped by upstream, should be contacted
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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:
"BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/892988-linenoise/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include
[Bug 892988] Review Request: linenoise - Minimal replacement for readline
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892988 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org 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=hwdGYGX0Jp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893165] New: Review Request: mod_qos - Quality of service module for Apache
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893165 Bug ID: 893165 Summary: Review Request: mod_qos - Quality of service module for Apache Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: chris...@damian.net Spec URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SPECS/mod_qos.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SRPMS/mod_qos-10.13-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: The mod_qos module may be used to determine which requests should be served and which shouldn't in order to avoid resource over-subscription. The module collects different attributes such as the request URL, HTTP request and response headers, the IP source address, the HTTP response code, history data (based on user session and source IP address), the number of concurrent requests to the server (total or requests having similar attributes), the number of concurrent TCP connections (total or from a single source IP), and so forth. Counteractive measures to enforce the defined rules are: request blocking, dynamic timeout adjustment, request delay, response throttling, and dropping of TCP connections. Fedora Account System Username: cdamian -- 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=TUb5zy3BgD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky --- Everything is fine, except the licensing (yeah, should have been clear so my bad): Main package: License: MIT %samples # gtk-demo is LGPLv2+ License: LGPLv2+ and MIT I trust you to fix this up before putting this in repos so: 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=ysmaJU746l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892335] Review Request: AudioCuesheetEditor (v0.2.1)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892335 --- Comment #5 from Sven Baus --- Hello, I could need some help over here. Anyone has any idea, why it fails with xbuild? Greetings Sven -- 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=I8nPmP1zZS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny --- Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-4.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jan 7 2013 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.6.2-4 - Remove unnecessary patch. - Update license tag: gtk-demo is licensed under LGPLv2+. - Put fully versioned dependency in subpackage. -- 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=TRwY79EEH0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891125] Review Request: zathura-djvu - DjVu support for zathura
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891125 --- Comment #11 from François Cami --- Updated .spec and srpm: Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-djvu.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc18.src.rpm Builds in mock: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849100 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4849124 Thanks to you both. -- 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=HquQCoO7VQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875150] Review Request: MariaDB - An enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #15 from Jiri Popelka ---
Some suggestions for spec file clean-up:
1)
- %post libs
- /sbin/ldconfig
+ %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
- %postun libs
- if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
- /sbin/ldconfig
- fi
+ %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
and there's no need to 'Requires: /sbin/ldconfig' in '%package libs'
2) Given that mariadb won't be available for F17 you don't need to check
whether macroized systemd scriptlets exist (they do in F18+)
- %if 0%{?systemd_post:1}
- %systemd_post mysqld.service
- %else
- if [ $1 = 1 ]; then
-# Initial installation
-/bin/systemctl daemon-reload >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
- fi
- %endif
+ %systemd_post mysqld.service
3) could this be removed (there's been rpm 4.10 in F18) ?
# When rpm 4.9 is universal, this could be cleaned up:
%global __perl_requires %{SOURCE999}
%global __perllib_requires %{SOURCE999}
--
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=CH0Aj4sAkc&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875150] Review Request: MariaDB - An enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150 --- Comment #14 from Jiri Popelka --- Created attachment 674968 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=674968&action=edit fedora-review's licensecheck output -- 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=kjHPOZEiwd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875150] Review Request: MariaDB - An enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Jiri Popelka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpope...@redhat.com
Assignee|hho...@redhat.com |jpope...@redhat.com
--- Comment #13 from Jiri Popelka ---
I've done the review as discussed with Honza.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[N/A] = Not Applicable
Issues:
===
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
5.5.28-4 -> 5.5.28a-4
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Looking at the README and the result of fedora-review's licensecheck
(will attach) it seems there could be also LGPLv2 and/or BSD licensed files.
Could you check it ?
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane.
I think you should remove all occurrences of %{epoch}, because it's undefined:
# rpm -qp --provides mariadb-5.5.28a-4.fc18.x86_64.rpm
mysql = %{epoch}:5.5.28a-4.fc18
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Shouldn't the tests be run in %check instead of %build ?
= 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.
[!]: 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
[N/A]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[N/A]: 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.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros.
[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: Conflicts: tags contain justification.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[N/A]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[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)
[N/A]: 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 out
[Bug 893132] New: Review Request: sphinxtrain - Acoustic model trainer for CMU's Sphinx tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893132 Bug ID: 893132 Summary: Review Request: sphinxtrain - Acoustic model trainer for CMU's Sphinx tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain-1.0.8-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: SphinxTrain is Carnegie Mellon University's open source acoustic model trainer. It contains the scripts and instructions necessary for building models for the CMU Sphinx Recognizer. Fedora Account System Username: jjames -- 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=4AdjurtlEJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893109] Review Request: php-jsonlint - JSON Lint for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893109 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Clone Of||893111 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-01-08 10:44:13 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski --- Resubmitted as bug #893111 with correct account. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 893111 *** -- 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=14FxCOP3o1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893111] Review Request: php-jsonlint - JSON Lint for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893111 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||siwin...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski --- *** Bug 893109 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=M0kGyZGjzW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893111] New: Review Request: php-jsonlint - JSON Lint for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893111 Bug ID: 893111 Summary: Review Request: php-jsonlint - JSON Lint for PHP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-jsonlint.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-jsonlint-1.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: JSON Lint for PHP. This library is a port of the JavaScript jsonlint (https://github.com/zaach/jsonlint) library. Fedora Account System Username: siwinski -- 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=0mjHYrU0XW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893109] New: Review Request: php-jsonlint - JSON Lint for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893109 Bug ID: 893109 Summary: Review Request: php-jsonlint - JSON Lint for PHP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: siwin...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-jsonlint.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-jsonlint-1.1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: JSON Lint for PHP. This library is a port of the JavaScript jsonlint (https://github.com/zaach/jsonlint) library. Fedora Account System Username: siwinski -- 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=aHte3l3Jxg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889400] Review Request: php-PHPParser - A PHP parser written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889400 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-PHPParser-0.9.3-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-PHPParser-0.9.3-2.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=VhdJ0e80iG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889400] Review Request: php-PHPParser - A PHP parser written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889400 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- php-PHPParser-0.9.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-PHPParser-0.9.3-2.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=QehPsNizY6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889400] Review Request: php-PHPParser - A PHP parser written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889400 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- php-PHPParser-0.9.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-PHPParser-0.9.3-2.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=26bkPTbs21&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889400] Review Request: php-PHPParser - A PHP parser written in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889400 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FbcxNm0hB7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863793] Review Request: skeinforge - Converts 3D model into G-Code for RepRap
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863793 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/skeinforge.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/skeinforge-12.03.14-11.fc17.src.rpm - Don't add license.txt as a separate source -- 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=Ax4Xm5e3Vw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891235] nodejs-semver - Semantic versioner for npm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891235 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g ||mail.com) -- 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=VbbYnMj2PN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891235] nodejs-semver - Semantic versioner for npm
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891235
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok ---
Summary OK.
Description OK.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/nodejs-semver-1.1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-semver-1.1.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
nodejs-semver.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) versioner -> version er,
version-er, version
nodejs-semver.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) npm -> pm, rpm, ppm
nodejs-semver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-semver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US npm -> pm, rpm, ppm
nodejs-semver.src: W: strange-permission nodejs-semver.spec 0600L
nodejs-semver.src: W: no-%build-section
nodejs-semver.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) versioner -> version er,
version-er, version
nodejs-semver.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) npm -> pm, rpm, ppm
nodejs-semver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-semver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US npm -> pm, rpm,
ppm
nodejs-semver.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-semver.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary semver
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
TODO: Fix the permissions on the spec (should be rw-rw-r--)
FIX: Add %build section (even if empty), it is needed
TODO: Consider contacting upstream about the manpage, if you think it would be
helpful
All other things are false positive.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
Checked in LICENSE, MIT. OK
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. OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK
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.
$ sha256sum ../SOURCES/semver-1.1.1.tgz
d76d0f0c91e1a5ad6ea1eb8830073510c6a6e5d0d275ba2a686425ee770f8c26
../SOURCES/semver-1.1.1.tgz
$ wget -q http://registry.npmjs.org/semver/-/semver-1.1.1.tgz
$ sha256sum semver-1.1.1.tgz
d76d0f0c91e1a5ad6ea1eb8830073510c6a6e5d0d275ba2a686425ee770f8c26
semver-1.1.1.tg
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. OK
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. OK, builds
in mock
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK
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. [13]
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). OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-semver-1.1.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 37 led 8 14:37
/usr/bin/semver -> ../lib/node_modules/semver/bin/semver
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 8 14:37
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 8 14:37
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver/bin
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 1944 lis 29 01:46
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver/bin/semver
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 8 14:37
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver/node_modules
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 436 lis 29 01:46
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver/package.json
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 9196 říj 2 19:02
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver/semver.js
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 8 14:37
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-semver-1.1.1
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1092 kvě 13 2011
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-semver-1.1.1/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3979 říj 18 12:37
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-semver-1.1.1/README.md
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK
MUST: If a p
[Bug 875353] Review Request: mfiler4 - 2 pane file manager with a embedded shell
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875353 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-01-08 08:51:54 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Built on F-19/18/17, push requested on F-18/17. Thank you for review and git procedure, closing. -- 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=Qb0beVvGQC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891221] Review Request: nodejs-promzard - A prompting wizard for building files from specialized PromZard modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891221 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=R8HTTtcE3Q&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891195] nodejs-inherits - A tiny simple way to do classic inheritance in js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891195 --- 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=3aUpu9ODCz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891194] nodejs-graceful-fs - 'fs' module with incremental back-off on EMFILE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891194 --- Comment #8 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=CqwfuuHt5V&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836821] Review Request: libcec - Library for HDMI-CEC device control
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836821 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Mohamed El Morabity --- libcec was only built for F18, whereas a branch was requested for F17 too. Are there any plans to make it available for F17 too? -- 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=ETsdMZANn5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891235] nodejs-semver - Semantic versioner for npm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891235 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.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=fefYEhQeM8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887913] Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887913 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(psab...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar --- (In reply to comment #10) > Is there a way to add this package to F17 and F18 where are the older > versions of polyclipping-devel? Even if it builds in rawhide, i would add > older versions to F17 and F18 to reflect upstream perl module and library > version relations. > What do sponsors think? I believe best practise is to package and review for rawhide first. At least because older build inherits into rawhide. -- 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=CCtIGBGTqO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892988] Review Request: linenoise - Minimal replacement for readline
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892988 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||891461 -- 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=KN4uM0uKWp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891461] Review Request: phantomjs - Headless WebKit with a JavaScript API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891461 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||892988 --- Comment #8 from Dan Callaghan --- Linenoise is packaged, its review is bug 892988. I have here a (trivial) patch for phantomjs to unbundle it, not worth posting a new SRPM yet though. QCommandline is the next one I will need to tackle... Since it seems nobody is willing to fork and maintain it (certainly I am not), I will look into porting phantomjs to something else instead. -- 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=QOgiGIPaIP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891461] Review Request: phantomjs - Headless WebKit with a JavaScript API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891461 --- Comment #7 from Dan Callaghan --- (In reply to comment #3) > Also, you remove breakpad from the list of bundle, but nothing replace it, I > assume that's because we use abrt in Fedora ? Yes, exactly. No need for us to handle SIGSEGV inside phantomjs. -- 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=kIoZnIrCf7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892988] New: Review Request: linenoise - Minimal replacement for readline
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892988 Bug ID: 892988 Summary: Review Request: linenoise - Minimal replacement for readline Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: dcall...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/linenoise/linenoise.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/linenoise/linenoise-0-1.git7946e2c.fc17.src.rpm Description: Linenoise is a replacement for the readline line-editing library with the goal of being smaller. Fedora Account System Username: dcallagh -- 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=R3fWwCXW0A&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891207] nodejs-mute-stream - Bytes go in, but they don't come out (when muted)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891207 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- Package APPROVED. I suppose you have no %build section in othe packages too, when bored, consider adding it, so the packages can be approved faster. -- 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=5HXIQroNuL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891223] nodejs-read - read(1) for node programs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891223 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- Package 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=FiaHr9VOyW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887913] Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887913 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to comment #9) > I think this is due to newer polyclipping-devel-5.0.2-1.fc19 library in > rawhide. It seems to. I'll wait for upstream to publish new version. Is there a way to add this package to F17 and F18 where are the older versions of polyclipping-devel? Even if it builds in rawhide, i would add older versions to F17 and F18 to reflect upstream perl module and library version relations. Thanks -- 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=lvHHRrZYdR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892972] Review Request: maven-osgi - Library for Maven-OSGi integration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892972 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||850077 -- 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=ya4ILjgrfu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891461] Review Request: phantomjs - Headless WebKit with a JavaScript API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891461 --- Comment #6 from Dan Callaghan --- (In reply to comment #5) Thanks for joining the conversation here, Ariya. My comment #2 about "bundling junk" was rude and uncivil, I apologise for that. I was frustrated after spending the morning trying to package linenoise. Actually my frustration was mainly with linenoise, for actively encouraging embedding in other programs and not building into a shared library. I do understand that there are many good reasons for you to bundle these third party dependencies, but Fedora has very strong policies against bundled dependencies (also for very good reasons). It's possible to apply for exemptions from FESCO but I doubt any of the reasons here would be sufficient, except perhaps for coffee-script due to the module loading issues (and ghostdriver, which I don't consider to be a third-party dependency at all). I'm also aware there will be some missing functionality with stock Qt. Right now I have 20 failures from the test suite, I think the most serious problem is file uploads, I am still hoping to find a solution for that. The test suite was also triggering a crash in qtwebkit but I filed that as bug 891464 and it is already fixed. I am very keen to see phantomjs shipped in Fedora because I think it's an excellent tool, but the only way that will happen is if I can find a way to get it building against packaged versions of all its dependencies. -- 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=y2z7jEiEh1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892972] New: Review Request: maven-osgi - Library for Maven-OSGi integration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892972 Bug ID: 892972 Summary: Review Request: maven-osgi - Library for Maven-OSGi integration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: tra...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-osgi/1/maven-osgi.spec SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-osgi/1/maven-osgi-0.2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Library for Maven-OSGi integration. This is a replacement package for maven-shared-osgi Fedora Account System Username: tradej -- 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=SZXbK9j7Iy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887913] Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887913
--- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-Math-Clipper.spec.old 2013-01-02 10:59:45.37100 +0100
+++ perl-Math-Clipper.spec 2013-01-08 10:09:41.17400 +0100
@@ -1,23 +1,24 @@
Name: perl-Math-Clipper
Version:1.16
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Perl wrapper around Clipper library
License:Boost
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Math-Clipper/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/A/AA/AAR/Math-Clipper-%{version}.tar.gz
Patch0: %{name}-1.16-1.no-c-sources.patch
-BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::Typemaps::Default) >= 0.05
-BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::XSpp) >= 0.16
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::WithXSpp)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::Deep)
-BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(Config)
+BuildRequires: perl(constant)
BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
-BuildRequires: polyclipping-devel
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::Typemaps::Default) >= 0.05
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::WithXSpp) >= 0.10
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Deep)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
+BuildRequires: perl(XSLoader)
+BuildRequires: polyclipping-devel >= 4.10
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))
%{?perl_default_filter} # Filters (not)shared c libs
@@ -45,12 +46,19 @@
./Build test
%files
-%doc Changes META.json xsp
+%doc Changes
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
%{perl_vendorarch}/Math*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Thu Jan 03 2013 Miro Hrončok - 1.16-2
+- Removed META.json and xsp from doc
+- Specified version for polyclipping-devel BR
+- Specified version for perl(Module::Build::WithXSpp) BR
+- Removed perl(ExtUtils::XSpp) BR
+- Added BRs perl(XSLoader) and perl(constant)
+
* Fri Dec 28 2012 Miro Hrončok - 1.16-1
- New version
- Removed boundled C clipper and using the distribution one
> TODO: Do not package META.json and xsp subtree. These are not useful for
> users.
-%doc Changes META.json xsp
+%doc Changes
Ok.
> TODO: Specify version for perl(Module::Build::WithXSpp) build-require `>=
> 0.10' (META.yml:12).
> TODO: In my opinion `perl(ExtUtils::XSpp)' is not direct dependency of this
> package, so it shouldn't be build-required.
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::WithXSpp)
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::WithXSpp) >= 0.10
Ok.
> TODO: Build-require `perl(XSLoader)' for running tests
> (lib/Math/Clipper.pm:14).
+BuildRequires: perl(XSLoader)
Ok.
> TODO: Build-require `perl(constant)' for running tests (t/002basic.t:6).
+BuildRequires: perl(constant)
Ok.
> FIX: This package build-requires Module::Build::WithXSpp (bug #876405) and
> ExtUtils::Typemaps::Default (bug #876399) which are not yet in Fedora. I
> added proper bug dependencies and I postponed this review until they get into
> Fedora.
Ok.
TODO: You can replace %__perl macro with plain perl.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Math-Clipper.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Math-Clipper-1.16-2.fc19.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Math-Clipper-1.16-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Math-Clipper-1.16-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jan 8 10:24
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Math
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot24913 Jan 8 10:24
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Math/Clipper.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jan 8 10:24
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Math
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jan 8 10:24
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Math/Clipper
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot36544 Jan 8 10:24
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Math/Clipper/Clipper.so
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jan 8 10:24
/usr/share/doc/perl-Math-Clipper-1.16
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3365 Dec 26 15:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Math-Clipper-1.16/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8769 Jan 8 10:24
/usr/share/man/man3/Math::Clipper.3pm.gz
File layout and permissions are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Math-Clipper-1.16-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm
|sort |uniq -c
1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
1 libpolyclipping.so.4()(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
1 perl >= 0:5.008
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(Config)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(warnings)
1 perl(XSLoader)
1 rpmlib(
[Bug 857724] Review Request: php53-simplepie.spec - Simple RSS Library in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857724 --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet --- You cannot requires (for ex.) php53-curl which is not a package (and provided). Per Guildelines you should requires all the "needed" extensions, so php-curl (which is provided both by php-common and php53-common) Of course, you need to also requires php53-common to ensure minimal version (5.2.0 according to upstream), until we have, as in fedora, the php(language) provided by php in RHEL (pending). So: # to ensure minimal PHP version Requires:php53-common # extensions required Requires:php-IDNA_Convert Requires:php-curl Requires:php-date Requires:php-dom Requires:php-iconv Requires:php-libxml Requires:php-mbstring Requires:php-pcre Requires:php-pdo Requires:php-reflection Requires:php-xml I'm also confused by https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-0007 I don't think you can push php-simplepie 1.3.1 in EPEL-5 (else this package won't be needed) -- 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=rRRZzElFgZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
