[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 --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- A few things. You have the same file being owned my multiple packages. You only need to include the license file once if a package that it is provided by a parent package. Use %doc in the main package and then remove them from the sub-packages. As long as the license files are present for every possibly combination of installed packages. /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/gpl-2.0.txt /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/mit-license.txt /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/std-ext-lib.txt /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/LICENSE would become %doc LICENSE gpl-2.0.txt mit-license.txt ChangeLog in only the main babeltrace and libbabeltrace packages. You could then drop the /usr/share/doc/babeltrace directory altogether. You should also run the binary generated under tests in the %check 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=wB3SMElQc7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891202] nodejs-lru-cache - A cache object that deletes the least recently used items
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891202
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Hi T.C.
Issues:
===
- %clean is not needed
- BuildRoot is not needed
- cleaning of buildroot in %install is not needed
- %defattr is not needed
- tests should be run if possible
In the same line as discussed in #891194, I follow the same criteria for the
review (ie ignore el5 stuff, the installation of node modules in /usr/lib and
the tests)
I would take the Summary it as the provided by Debian:
- Javascript least-recently-used cache object
and the description:
A cache object that deletes the least recently used items
rpmlint output:
nodejs-lru-cache.src: W: strange-permission nodejs-lru-cache.spec 0600L
- Please change permissions
nodejs-lru-cache.src: W: no-%build-section
- Add the %%build section (even if empty).
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
-I checked manually in the LICENSE file in this it is under MIT license
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[Bug 891202] nodejs-lru-cache - A cache object that deletes the least recently used items
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891202 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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=1Ram2qkYXAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827649] Review Request: supercat - colorized cat
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827649 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(aal...@gmail.com) --- Comment #23 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Any progress? -- 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=Z77yKJIXiga=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 #15 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- I re-set the review flag. It seems that you chose the incorrect :) -- 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=l2EiRrXkOZa=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 echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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=kv8G3Ho1kba=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 echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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=d6gdVrrtHsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887488] Review Request: sugar-words - A multi lingual dictionary with speech synthesis for sugar
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887488 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Summary|sugar-words - A multi |Review Request: sugar-words |lingual dictionary with |- A multi lingual |speech synthesis for sugar |dictionary with speech ||synthesis for sugar -- 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=U7Y7cql2pia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891203] nodejs-mime - A comprehensive library for mime-type mapping
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891203 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||echevemas...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi T.C. -The url should be https://github.com/broofa/node-mime not http://github.com/broofa - Add the %build section I think there is a problem between tar and npm, as comment, and I'm not sure these warnings how affect the build I found something here: https://github.com/isaacs/npm/issues/1197 You know something more specific about this? -- 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=Pgk2VwZgADa=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 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- I will do the 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=4HsQjJb9NAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857724] Review Request: php53-simplepie.spec - Simple RSS Library in PHP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857724
--- Comment #9 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
$ diff php53-simplepie.spec.0 php53-simplepie.spec
9c9
Release:3%{?dist}
---
Release: 4%{?dist}
26,36c26,27
Requires:php53-IDNA_Convert
Requires:php53-curl
Requires:php53-date
Requires:php53-dom
Requires:php53-iconv
Requires:php53-libxml
Requires:php53-mbstring
Requires:php53-pcre
Requires:php53-pdo
Requires:php53-reflection
Requires:php53-xml
---
# To get standard requires packages
Requires: php53-common
86a78,80
* Wed Jan 09 2013 Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com - 1.3.1-4
- Fix requires.
Why have you remove all the requires for needed extensions ?
You really need 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=0CHNwzVB10a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891236] nodejs-sigmund - Quick and dirty signatures for Objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891236 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||echevemas...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- In the same line as discussed in #891194, I follow the same criteria for the review (ie ignore el5 stuff, the installation of node modules in /usr/lib and the tests) the url should be: https://github.com/isaacs/sigmund not https://github.com/isaacs/sig Add the %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=f1d27PLTQ7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857722] Review Request: php53-IDNA_Convert - Provides conversion of internationalized strings to UTF8
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857722 Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2013-01-09 04:36:27 --- Comment #2 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #1) You don't need this package. OK -- 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=g3ojiMDM59a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857724] Review Request: php53-simplepie.spec - Simple RSS Library in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857724 Bug 857724 depends on bug 857722, which changed state. Bug 857722 Summary: Review Request: php53-IDNA_Convert - Provides conversion of internationalized strings to UTF8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857722 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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=NTDnxEFPdGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857724] Review Request: php53-simplepie.spec - Simple RSS Library in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857724 --- Comment #8 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #7) 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) Something like this http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4850885 (SPEC file in the same URL)? 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) Unpushed. -- 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=d4F5cqq6YKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893399] New: Review Request: asekey - ASEKey USB token driver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 Bug ID: 893399 Summary: Review Request: asekey - ASEKey USB token driver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/asekey/asekey.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/asekey/asekey-3.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This is driver for ASEKey USB cryptographic token in form of PCSC plug-in. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar --- This package will go into F≥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=i6SzuRu3tEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882499] Review Request: sbc - Sub Band Codec used by bluetooth A2DP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882499 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-01-09 05:32:55 -- 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=SSy4crAHeFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891237] nodejs-slide - A flow control library that fits in a slideshow
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891237 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com 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=gIzgCIh0Xra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893399] Review Request: asekey - ASEKey USB token driver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- I have reuploaded new spec file that fixes configuration bug in 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=wLiQlnMpDwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891237] nodejs-slide - A flow control library that fits in a slideshow
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891237
Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g
||mail.com)
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com ---
Description and Summary are 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-slide-1.1.3-3.fc18.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-slide-1.1.3-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
nodejs-slide.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) slideshow - sideshow, slide
show, slide-show
nodejs-slide.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js - dis, ks, j
nodejs-slide.src: W: no-%build-section
nodejs-slide.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) slideshow - sideshow,
slide show, slide-show
nodejs-slide.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js - dis, ks, j
nodejs-slide.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
FIX: Add an empty %build section
Other issues 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.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
There is no license statement in the tarball. However I can see it on GitHub
https://raw.github.com/isaacs/slide-flow-control/master/LICENSE
FIX: Add statement about the LICENSE in future release (as you did in
nodejs-promzard)
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/slide-1.1.3.tgz
80c07458031e72640a5cf0abe8825e8c33ef00a0326217ae7c1c59494ee96e04
../SOURCES/slide-1.1.3.tgz
$ wget -q http://registry.npmjs.org/slide/-/slide-1.1.3.tgz
$ sha256sum slide-1.1.3.tgz
80c07458031e72640a5cf0abe8825e8c33ef00a0326217ae7c1c59494ee96e04
slide-1.1.3.tgz
OK
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. OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-slide-1.1.3-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 9 11:46
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 9 11:46
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/lib
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1729 čec 27 2011
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/lib/async-map-ordered.js
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1496 čec 27 2011
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/lib/async-map.js
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 382 čec 27 2011
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/lib/bind-actor.js
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 660 čec 27 2011
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/lib/chain.js
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 121 čec 27 2011
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/lib/slide.js
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 9 11:46
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/node_modules
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 520 čec 27 2011
/usr/lib/node_modules/slide/package.json
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 9 11:46
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-slide-1.1.3
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 733 čec 27 2011
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-slide-1.1.3/README.md
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 167502 čec 27 2011
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-slide-1.1.3/nodejs-controlling-flow.pdf
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable
[Bug 891237] nodejs-slide - A flow control library that fits in a slideshow
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891237 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Actually, there are no TODOs you should consider to fix, only FIXes, sorry for that. -- 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=OlFD2JLRROa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891205] nodejs-minimatch - JavaScript glob matcher
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891205 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com 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=Yebddeh1XLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 831878] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log collection tool for oVirt
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831878 Dave Neary dne...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dne...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Dave Neary dne...@redhat.com --- Hi, (In reply to comment #5) Problem 5: ovirt-log-collector.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/engine-log-collector.8.gz 28: name expected (got a special character): treated as missing Not sure what this means, but it's a warning anyway. Yeah, I have no idea how to fix this. Looking at the sources, this comes from the line 25 .\' Describe engine\-slimmed Lines starting with a . in troff are commands, and \' is not a valid command, it's a special character. However, lots of man pages seem to use .\\ or . \' at the start of lines, I have no idea why (or what tool is generating them). If this is supposed to be a comment, it should be . Describe engine\-slimmed Is it intended to be something else? Dave. -- 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=cXOyWNgEJpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893465] New: Review Request: siddhanta-fonts - Devanagari script font for Sanskrit, Vedic, Hindi, Nepali languages
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893465 Bug ID: 893465 Summary: Review Request: siddhanta-fonts - Devanagari script font for Sanskrit, Vedic, Hindi, Nepali languages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: pnem...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/siddhanta-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/siddhanta-fonts-1.000-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Siddhanta font software was designed by Mihail Bayaryn. The main features of the Siddhanta font: Ligatures: Siddhanta uses vertical ligature composition, due to this feature it supports the largest amount of Devanagari ligatures Character set: Siddhanta contains Vedic, Devanagari Extended Unicode, Latin and Cyrillic character sets Compatibility: Supports Unicode 6.0 standard Hinting: Siddhanta is a manually hinted true type font, it is good for use both in screen and in print; its line weight is good for eyes Calligraphy: Siddhanta is a calligraphically precise and realistic font, there are no gaps between half-forms and full forms of characters. Free: Siddhnata font is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Its Latin and Cyrillic glyph sets are based on DejaVu font. Siddhanta can be used as a web font. Fedora Account System Username: pnemade -- 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=CgN1CmR1Yka=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
Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output: maven-osgi.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
maven-osgi-0.2.0.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: ae43e35257505eb48292333fe011f90b
maven-osgi-0.2.0.tar.xz
MD5SUM upstream package: same content
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[x] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[x] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
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=6jKWGbjPZda=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892800] Review Request: WindowMaker-extra - Extra icons and themes for WindowMaker
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892800
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
WindowMaker-extra.noarch: I: checking
WindowMaker-extra.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.windowmaker.org (timeout
10 seconds)
WindowMaker-extra.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/WindowMaker-extra-0.1/COPYING
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
WindowMaker-extra.src: I: checking
WindowMaker-extra.src: I: checking-url http://www.windowmaker.org (timeout 10
seconds)
WindowMaker-extra.src: W: strange-permission WindowMaker-extra-0.1.tar.gz 0444L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
WindowMaker-extra.src: I: checking-url
http://windowmaker.org/pub/source/release/WindowMaker-extra-0.1.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
WindowMaker-extra.spec: I: checking-url
http://windowmaker.org/pub/source/release/WindowMaker-extra-0.1.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Don't bother with the incorrect FSF address. Well, if the upstream folks is
still available, givt them a hint so that they can change the address in future
releases.
Regarding the strange file permissions, 0444 means that's the file isn't
writable even by Root. Doesn't matter, keep it as is.
OK, here we go:
-
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.
GPLv2
[+] 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 *
0b0cc956dec5b583f3e6d95c0172db7da4a4bebc2a51f0036c7257517c803dc2
WindowMaker-extra-0.1.tar.gz
0b0cc956dec5b583f3e6d95c0172db7da4a4bebc2a51f0036c7257517c803dc2
WindowMaker-extra-0.1.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the
[Bug 893566] New: Review Request: tagainijisho - A free Japanese dictionary and study assistant
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893566 Bug ID: 893566 Summary: Review Request: tagainijisho - A free Japanese dictionary and study assistant Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: martin.sour...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/tagainijisho.spec SRPM URL: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tagainijisho-0.9.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: A free Japanese dictionary and study assistant Fedora Account System Username: mso -- 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=4v28ZYDCz5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893566] Review Request: tagainijisho - A free Japanese dictionary and study assistant
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893566 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com --- Dictionaries are split by language into sub-packages, at least one needs to be present, so I use virtual provides for them. As for rpmlint output: tagainijisho.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Tagaini - Again name of the program tagainijisho.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kanji - Kantian kanji=chinese characters tagainijisho.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup - lockup, hookup, look up my dictionary (New Oxford American Dictionary) contains this word tagainijisho.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/tagainijisho/detailed_default.html tagainijisho.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/tagainijisho/detailed_jmdict.css these files seem to be needed, but I'm not 100% sure. -- 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=AWdJQZ5ttJa=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 #16 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=31Syc9aRC2a=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 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Njw5ZVqIFLa=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 #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Is this supposed to by nodejs-mkdir or nodejs-mkdirp? Please make the summary and request match. 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=x20D4ozDWma=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 #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wQZLbHi9lVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891996] Review Request: lua-ldoc - Lua documentation generator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891996 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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=RtVDWlXM7xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891996] Review Request: lua-ldoc - Lua documentation generator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891996 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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=Sw25YG6PIca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891996] Review Request: lua-ldoc - Lua documentation generator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891996 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- I'll review this (FYI fedora-review flag is supposed to be set by reviewer) -- 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=79QI9vbPk0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891999] Review Request: lua-penlight - Penlight Lua Libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891999 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de --- Reset the fedora-review flag, somehow I misread the guidelines. -- 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=SB8Oa1dKyKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891999] Review Request: lua-penlight - Penlight Lua Libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891999 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||socho...@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=CHUdzqp7zAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891999] Review Request: lua-penlight - Penlight Lua Libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891999 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- I will not post whole output of fedora-review since it's unnecessary, the package is mostly good. Three points remain: 1. Have you tried running tests from tests directory? 2. It would be nice to package examples as a separate subpackage too. 3. There are also two typos, one discovered by rpmlint: lua-penlight.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US focussing - focusing, focus sing, focus-sing 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. and another in comment: # there's a circlular (build) dependency with lua-ldoc ^ -- 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=YAHl58KvhBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891999] Review Request: lua-penlight - Penlight Lua Libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891999 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.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=2MoIINP2jQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891205] nodejs-minimatch - JavaScript glob matcher
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891205
Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g
||mail.com)
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com ---
Description and Summary 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-minimatch-0.2.9-1.fc18.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-minimatch-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
nodejs-minimatch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matcher - marcher,
matches, catcher
nodejs-minimatch.src: W: strange-permission nodejs-minimatch.spec 0600L
nodejs-minimatch.src: W: no-%build-section
nodejs-minimatch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matcher - marcher,
matches, catcher
nodejs-minimatch.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-minimatch.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch/node_modules/lru-cache
/usr/lib/node_modules/lru-cache
nodejs-minimatch.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch/node_modules/sigmund
/usr/lib/node_modules/sigmund
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
FIX: Add an empty %build section
TODO: Change spec permissions to 664
Other issues are false positive. Symlinks lead to required packages, OK.
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.
Chcecked 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/minimatch-0.2.9.tgz
3181e6d978d096c6dd3914d498d49013a3aba60ee8d6d0d5115323d0e8e6d231
../SOURCES/minimatch-0.2.9.tgz
$ wget -q http://registry.npmjs.org/minimatch/-/minimatch-0.2.9.tgz
$ sha256sum minimatch-0.2.9.tgz
3181e6d978d096c6dd3914d498d49013a3aba60ee8d6d0d5115323d0e8e6d231
minimatch-0.2.9.tgz
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. 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. OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 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-minimatch-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 9 12:19
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot28935 říj 25 17:33
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch/minimatch.js
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 9 12:19
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch/node_modules
lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 31 led 9 12:19
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch/node_modules/lru-cache -
/usr/lib/node_modules/lru-cache
lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 29 led 9 12:19
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch/node_modules/sigmund -
/usr/lib/node_modules/sigmund
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 662 led 9 12:19
/usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch/package.json
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 led 9 12:19
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-minimatch-0.2.9
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1092 čec 29 2011
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-minimatch-0.2.9/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6652 bře 22 2012
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-minimatch-0.2.9/README.md
OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the
[Bug 891125] Review Request: zathura-djvu - DjVu support for zathura
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891125 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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=1pPEnKMiTYa=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 #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.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=jBiak1eq1oa=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 #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.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=fbiMCP7t3ha=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 #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.fc16 -- 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=ZNpvUHarlpa=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 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-01-09 11:16:54 -- 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=dWVA2zMH8pa=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 --- Comment #1 from Juan Manuel Rodriguez nus...@fedoraproject.org --- The package fails to build on the newer LUA that comes with Fedora 18 (5.1.4). I've talked to Ablu and he said that a patch is coming soon to help fix this. -- 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=bj1RjRsBNAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openscad-2013.01.08-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openscad-2013.01.08-1.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=59GxmPuCYOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 864187] Review Request: openscad - The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864187 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openscad-2013.01.08-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openscad-2013.01.08-1.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=cO3aASprSCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857724] Review Request: php53-simplepie.spec - Simple RSS Library in PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857724 --- Comment #10 from Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com --- Another try http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4852160 (and .spec file in the same place) -- 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=1vqcUhFKF0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857724] Review Request: php53-simplepie.spec - Simple RSS Library in PHP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857724
--- Comment #11 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
$ diff php53-simplepie.spec.1 php53-simplepie.spec
9c9
Release:4%{?dist}
---
Release: 5%{?dist}
27a28
Requires: php53-mbstring, php53-xml, php53-pdo, php-IDNA_Convert
77a79,81
* Wed Jan 09 2013 Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com - 1.3.1-5
- Another try of fixing Requires.
Test installation on RHEL 5.9 : OK.
--
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=Ne0shlUjb1a=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 #18 from Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #17) (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. Well, since test-suite is not interrupted in case some tests fail and comparing duration of testing to duration of %install section, I don't see the wasting time too much important here. 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. Actually, rpmbuild allows to skip %check section with --nocheck now, but I'm not sure if it can be used in wrappers like fedpkg, if people don't use rpmbuild directly. Anyway, I can imagine someone can benefit from moving the tests to %check section, so I'd vote for the change. -- 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=yVO55OV3sLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857724] Review Request: php53-simplepie.spec - Simple RSS Library in PHP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857724
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d |fed...@famillecollet.com
|e |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
$ diff php-simplepie.spec php53-simplepie.spec
7c7
Name:php-simplepie
---
Name: php53-simplepie
9c9
Release:3%{?dist}
---
Release: 5%{?dist}
15,16c15
Source0:http://simplepie.org/downloads/simplepie_%{version}.zip
---
Source0: https://nodeload.github.com/simplepie/simplepie/legacy.zip/%{version}
21a21
26,36c26,28
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
---
# To get standard requires packages
Requires: php53-common
Requires: php53-mbstring, php53-xml, php53-pdo, php-IDNA_Convert
Minimal review as this is an adaptation of an existing package.
No Blocker, requires are fine.
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=Vj7EfnSDqna=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893705] New: Review Request: exec-maven-plugin - Exec Maven Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893705 Bug ID: 893705 Summary: Review Request: exec-maven-plugin - Exec Maven Plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: m...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/exec-maven-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/exec-maven-plugin-1.2.1-6.fc19.src.rpm Description: A plugin to allow execution of system and Java programs. Fedora Account System Username: msrb renaming of maven-plugin-exec to exec-maven-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=EZYRyIgVeTa=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 #19 from Tom Lane t...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #17) 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. Actually, rpmbuild allows to skip %check section with --nocheck now, [ checks an F18 machine... ] Huh, they finally got around to adding that. Okay, given that I'm fine with using %check instead of a hand-rolled define. The only real downside is that we couldn't make the can't-be-root test at the very start, but that seems like a minor issue. -- 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=9yY8zAXbs1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885043] Review Request: seam-solder - A portable CDI extensions library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885043 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: seam-solder Short Description: A portable CDI extensions library Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- 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=tfbbe5H93fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885043] Review Request: seam-solder - A portable CDI extensions library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885043 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 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=dfYf7fwXaFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885043] Review Request: seam-solder - A portable CDI extensions library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885043 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eh4SPzxf61a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892800] Review Request: WindowMaker-extra - Extra icons and themes for WindowMaker
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892800 Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierf...@lowlatency.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierf...@lowlatency.de --- Thanks for the review Mario. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: WindowMaker-extra Short Description: Extra icons and themes for WindowMaker Owners: awjb Branches: f17 f18 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=RTWf76IuQAa=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 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=b313wPl9wua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785466] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Http - Horde HTTP libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785466 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=nFrvtr7w5Za=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874677] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Rpc - Horde RPC API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874677 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Depends On||785436 (horde-exception), ||785473 (horde-perms), ||785476 (horde-serialize), ||785455 (horde-support), ||785432 (horde-translation), ||785439 (horde-util), 785482 ||(horde-xml-element), 785466 ||(horde-http), 785475 ||(horde-lock), 785483 ||(horde-syncml) --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Unless I missed it somewhere, Horde_Core is missing from the Horde review 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=XGtlX8VCxka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785482] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Element -Horde Xml Element object
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785482 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=lNMeCV3gd5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785475] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Lock - Horde Resource Locking System
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785475 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=hokJwzfJZRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785439] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Util - Horde Utility Libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785439 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=AvP5ZrL295a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785455] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Support - Horde support package
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=Epld71pKTLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785473] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Perms - Horde Permissions System
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785473 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=719XZWkKaoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785436] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Exception - Horde Exception Handler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785436 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=1rQM8Hg61sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785432] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Translation - Horde translation library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785432 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=CrCstRlPnua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785483] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-SyncMl - API for processing SyncML requests
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785483 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||874677 -- 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=4J1VlwZxTQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892800] Review Request: WindowMaker-extra - Extra icons and themes for WindowMaker
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892800 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6oCqCRgRYFa=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 tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- The summary was correct, I typoed. Sorry about that. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-mkdirp 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=lrW58BCBmBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891203] nodejs-mime - A comprehensive library for mime-type mapping
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891203 --- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #1) Hi T.C. -The url should be https://github.com/broofa/node-mime not http://github.com/broofa - Add the %build section Thanks, I'm going to push updates to all my active reviews adding the %build section soon. I'll get the URL fixed at the same time. I think there is a problem between tar and npm, as comment, and I'm not sure these warnings how affect the build I found something here: https://github.com/isaacs/npm/issues/1197 You know something more specific about this? Yeah, tar spews out useless warnings during %setup because of this, as you might notice from the koji logs or when building packages locally. It doesn't hurt anything; the extra headers are simply ignored. -- 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=JaiZEjFcyFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892625] Review Request: resiprocate - SIP reference implementation, SIP proxy, TURN server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892625 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au --- reSIProcate 1.8.6 tarball has now been released. The previous issue with rpmbuild -tb failing on resiprocate tarballs has been fixed - it appears that rpmbuild choked because a second spec file was included in the tarball (repro/repro.spec) - that has been removed. Now it is possible to just do: wget https://www.resiprocate.org/files/pub/reSIProcate/releases/resiprocate-1.8.6.tar.gz rpmbuild -tb resiprocate-1.8.6.tar.gz -- 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=UFm1T2XfZRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891237] nodejs-slide - A flow control library that fits in a slideshow
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891237 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g | |mail.com) | --- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Thanks! I'm going to update all my active reviews soon (hopefully this afternoon) with %build sections and other various sundry fixes. Everything that has already passed review will have %build sections when they go into dist-git as well. -- 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=Dt1Zk3kKgda=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 #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bcRrwH8eV6a=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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=dGoWDzhNlEa=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 #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.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=nd1vfZKxyXa=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 #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.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=5QrtIg9jeaa=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 #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc16 -- 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=hsinipjAvxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892800] Review Request: WindowMaker-extra - Extra icons and themes for WindowMaker
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892800 Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierf...@lowlatency.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-01-09 15:07:27 -- 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=dwdXowRLh3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891999] Review Request: lua-penlight - Penlight Lua Libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891999 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de --- Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-penlight/lua-penlight.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-penlight/lua-penlight-1.0.3-2.a.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jan 9 2013 Thomas Moschny .. - 1.0.3-2.a - Fix typos. - Package examples as a separate subpackage. - Run tests. -- 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=bOOqELoKkCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891996] Review Request: lua-ldoc - Lua documentation generator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891996 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de --- Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-ldoc/lua-ldoc.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-ldoc/lua-ldoc-1.3.1-2.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Jan 9 2013 Thomas Moschny .. - 1.3.1-2 - Fix requirements. - Move docs to a separate 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=s2hR7XZchVa=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 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|leigh123li...@googlemail.co |mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co |m |m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- New scratch build (the previous one was outdated): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4852927 $ rpmlint -i -v *compiz-manager.noarch: I: checking compiz-manager.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libcompizconfig You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. compiz-manager.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.compiz.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) compiz-manager.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/compiz-manager-0.6.0/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. compiz-manager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiz-manager Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. compiz-manager.src: I: checking compiz-manager.src: I: checking-url http://www.compiz.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) compiz-manager.src: I: checking-url http://releases.compiz.org/0.6.0/compiz-manager-0.6.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) compiz-manager.spec: I: checking-url http://releases.compiz.org/0.6.0/compiz-manager-0.6.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. No manual page - not your problem. Wrong FSF address - not your problem. But in both cases, you have to inform the upstream developers, if possible, so that they can fix it in future releases. explicit-lib-dependency libcompizconfig is no problem in our case. In a noarch package without special build requirements, we don't have specific library calls which could rpm use to generate runtime dependencies. Stay tuned for a full 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=ZtZElVSkuPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885043] Review Request: seam-solder - A portable CDI extensions library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885043 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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=wTaPM1ufa2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885043] Review Request: seam-solder - A portable CDI extensions library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885043 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- seam-solder-3.1.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/seam-solder-3.1.1-2.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=uwenmX6zLwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 732216] Review Request: coffeescript - A programming language that transcompiles to JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216 Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com --- TC, would you consider reviving this review request given that node is now going to land in Fedora? -- 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=rxCxEBygnGa=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
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
-
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.
GPLv2+
[+] 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 *
acf5668ae6d12c7f33daef251f750b75634eac92ceca5ebb0745527fe8a60479
compiz-manager-0.6.0.tar.gz
acf5668ae6d12c7f33daef251f750b75634eac92ceca5ebb0745527fe8a60479
compiz-manager-0.6.0.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 use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your
[Bug 890356] Review Request: emerald-themes-extra - Extra themes for emerald, a window decorator for Compiz Fusion
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890356 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Would be nice to build a package for f18 (Rawhide already has been done) so that we can close this review request 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=nG4KjXu0k7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 863796] Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863796 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/printrun.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/printrun-0.0-15.20121103git6fa47668f2.fc17.src.rpm - Updated to respect new GitHub rule -- 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=gBgf9r4nHwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885043] Review Request: seam-solder - A portable CDI extensions library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885043 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- seam-solder-3.1.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/seam-solder-3.1.1-2.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=FEjYNLjxLWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890356] Review Request: emerald-themes-extra - Extra themes for emerald, a window decorator for Compiz Fusion
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890356 --- Comment #5 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- I will build the package for f18 if all other compiz packages are reviewed, than i do this in one rush. ccsm compiz-plugins-extra compiz-plugins-unsupported fusion-icon are missing. -- 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=lyQ8dBS2Ela=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PXTM7GP6nHa=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 #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zathura-djvu-0.2.1-2.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=iJpkZHJKu0a=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 #6 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Thank you for the review. Notice upstream about rpmlint issues would be difficult, because http://bugs.compiz.org/502 - Bad Gateway Seems like compiz close this site. -- 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=0FGTKx31s0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890946] Review Request: RepetierHost - 3D printer control software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890946 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/RepetierHost.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/RepetierHost-0.82b-3.fc18.src.rpm Updated to respect new GitHub rule -- 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=XKJsF7GDV7a=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 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Package Change Request == Package Name: compiz-manager New Branches: f18 Owners: raveit65 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=pETBjoh9Fza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851806] Review Request: ccsm - Plugin and configuration tool - Compiz Fusion Project
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851806
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|leigh123li...@googlemail.co |mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
|m |m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *ccsm.noarch: I: checking
ccsm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gui - GUI, goo, gun
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ccsm.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.compiz.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
ccsm.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ccsm-0.8.4/COPYING
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
ccsm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ccsm
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
ccsm.src: I: checking
ccsm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gui - GUI, goo, gun
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ccsm.src: I: checking-url http://www.compiz.org/ (timeout 10 seconds)
ccsm.src:32: W: macro-in-comment %{basever}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
ccsm.src: I: checking-url http://releases.compiz.org/0.8.4/ccsm-0.8.4.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
ccsm.spec:32: W: macro-in-comment %{basever}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
ccsm.spec: I: checking-url http://releases.compiz.org/0.8.4/ccsm-0.8.4.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
The common problem with incorrect FSF addresses... Don't touch them, as usual,
and inform upstream if possible. Moreover, you have to escape the macro in the
comment with a double %.
The gettext entry in BuildRequires is redundant. It is needed by intltool
anyway, you might safely drop it.
-
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.
GPLv2+
[+] 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 *
46b9da032cf29e71aec0823799861d926937ad41f4edea3be718ac6a8532c16d
ccsm-0.8.4.tar.bz2
46b9da032cf29e71aec0823799861d926937ad41f4edea3be718ac6a8532c16d
ccsm-0.8.4.tar.bz2.packaged
[+] 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.
[+]
[Bug 851806] Review Request: ccsm - Plugin and configuration tool - Compiz Fusion Project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851806 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Thank you for review. I will consider your hints. Package Change Request == Package Name: ccsm New Branches: f18 Owners: raveit65 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=DSLFaAZb2za=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 --- Comment #2 from Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review, Michael. (In reply to comment #1) 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. Build patches have been submitted here: https://github.com/tadmarshall/linenoise/pull/1 I've requested license clarifications from the authors by e-mail directly. I will update the spec with the results before committing it. -- 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=VVjEemQJxea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890589] Review Request: csprng - Entropy source using the cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890589 --- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- One detail that I forget: use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig instead of %post /sbin/ldconfig %postun /sbin/ldconfig -- 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=PNNEW7d0nua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
