[Bug 890769] Review Request: embryo - Small Pawn based virtual machine and compiler.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890769 --- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten --- Hi! 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=2zeOt6ZGvx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871511] Review Request: heimdall - Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > All the warnings about deleting object of polymorphic class type, which has
> > non-virtual destructor might cause undefined behaviour, are back. The flags
> > are stated in comment #9
>
> I don't think it's necessary to hide those warnings
It's a matter of do or not do, first upstream explains this behavior, on the
other hand would no hurt anyone hide these errors on build, anyway now for me
it is not a blocker.
about rpmlint warning (only-non-binary-in-usr-lib) Due to UsrMove this file
should be installed in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d ,therefore it is a bogus rpmlint's
warning
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
frontend
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/heimdall-
final/871511-heimdall/871511-heimdall/licensecheck.txt
MIT OK
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Not
[Bug 871511] Review Request: heimdall - Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511 Juan Orti Alcaine changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ | Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Juan Orti Alcaine --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: heimdall Short Description: Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices Owners: jorti echevemaster Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Olu7H512wi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871511] Review Request: heimdall - Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511 Juan Orti Alcaine changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hcp6h8PZZ3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913152] Review Request: MUMPS - A MUltifrontal Massively Parallel sparse direct Solver
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913152
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> [...]
> > > MUMPS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> > > /usr/lib64/libsmumps-4.10.0.so /lib64/libquadmath.so.0
> > > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 61 warnings.
> > > # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
> > >
> >
> > 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings seem the origin of dependency
> > problems during installation.
> > Sincerely, I don't know how resolve them. After a searching, it seems that
> > the flags '-Wl --as-needed' can be useful but it seems me they do not work.
>
> I am not sure about this either, using the last example, the the link command
> line does not have an explicit -lquadmath, and it should not be linked by
> gfotran:
>
> $ grep quadmath /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.0/libgfortran.spec
> *lib: %{static-libgfortran:--as-needed} -lquadmath
> %{static-libgfortran:--no-as-needed} -lm %(libgcc) %(liborig)
>
> but something is pulling it.
>
> the link command line is:
>
> gfortran -shared smumps_part1.o smumps_part2.o smumps_part3.o smumps_part4.o
> smumps_part5.o smumps_part6.o smumps_part7.o smumps_part8.o
> smumps_comm_buffer.o smumps_load.o smumps_c.o smumps_ooc_buffer.o
> smumps_ooc.o smumps_struc_def.o -Wl,-soname,libsmumps-4.10.0.so -L../lib
> -lmumps_common -L../PORD/lib/ -lpord -L../libseq -lmpiseq -lblas -o
> ../lib/libsmumps-4.10.0.so -Wl,-z,defs
Do you think we can't do nothing ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TQ3w9qLfP0&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913296] Review Request: salt-api - An API to the salt management and remote execution system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Spura --- (In reply to comment #5) > Thanks for your comments. It's interesting because when you approved salt, i > didn't have python?-devel as a BR. I'll make sure to add it in the next > version. However, maybe that's a newish requirement for python pages? Hmm, then I should have missed it there. It only changed from python-devel to python2-devel not too long ago, but I believe the BR on python-devel was there long before. When looking at the git logs, that was already added with the initial import: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/salt.git/commit/?id=bfbe7b1cb0e711e0e1324ed87b6d2726e9df8141 So it should just change to python2-devel instead of python-devel sometime. But as we won't switch to python3 soon, it's not an urgent issue for old packages. > Haven't played with spectool, thanks for the tip! You're welcome :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jLCW9wPIJE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912878] Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - psd
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912878 --- Comment #4 from gray...@archlinux.us --- I updated the upstream code and refreshed the respective files for review: Spec URL: http://repo-ck.com/fedora_rpms/profile-sync-daemon.spec SRPM URL: http://repo-ck.com/fedora_rpms/profile-sync-daemon-5.26-1.fc18.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5046536 Is there anything I can do to help expedite the review process? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=17Eqgzpuz7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902503] Review Request: rubygem-httpclient - HTTP Client interface for ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503 --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer --- Well, ruby is under the following license : License : (Ruby or BSD) and Public Domain So I do not see where does the GPL v2 come from, as http-access was first without license, then under ruby license ( ie, ruby or BSD ). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iLwusDBAq8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902503] Review Request: rubygem-httpclient - HTTP Client interface for ruby
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503
--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
= 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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/902503-rubygem-
httpclient/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
httpclient-doc
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]:
[Bug 896101] Review Request: inital-setup - The replacement for firstboot utility
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896101
--- Comment #13 from Michael Scherer ---
- this part seems rather suspicious :
%doc COPYING README
%files -f %{name}.lang
shouldn't be in another order ?
It doesn't seems to work fine :
$ rpm -qpl
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/initial-setup-0.1-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
| grep COP
$
- the metacity requires was not added nor commented on.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tWW3g465cl&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893866] Review Request: vboot-utils - Chromium OS vboot utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893866 --- Comment #15 from Dan Mashal --- You don't need %check for Fedora. FYI -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=71ElpMc5kl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893866] Review Request: vboot-utils - Chromium OS vboot utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893866 --- Comment #16 from Peter Robinson --- (In reply to comment #15) > You don't need %check for Fedora. FYI You don't need it but if the package supports it you should use it and I've found it picks up a lot of legitimate bugs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cgXoA9nh3M&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914924] New: Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924 Bug ID: 914924 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: t...@compton.nu Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-oauth.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-oauth-0.9.8-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo. Provides simplified client access and allows for construction of more complex apis and OAuth providers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AKJkrlgtaW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914923] New: Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914923 Bug ID: 914923 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: t...@compton.nu Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-oauth.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-oauth-0.9.8-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo. Provides simplified client access and allows for construction of more complex apis and OAuth providers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DW6DWcOXW1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914925] New: Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914925 Bug ID: 914925 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: t...@compton.nu Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-passport.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-passport-0.1.15-2.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: Passport is an authentication framework for Connect and Express, which is extensible through "plugins" known as strategies. Passport is designed to be a general-purpose, yet simple, modular, and unobtrusive, authentication framework. Passport's sole purpose is to authenticate requests. In being modular, it doesn't force any particular authentication strategy on your application. In being unobtrusive, it doesn't mount routes in your application. The API is simple: you give Passport a request to authenticate, and Passport provides hooks for controlling what occurs when authentication succeeds or fails. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eS8nWLFcjj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893866] Review Request: vboot-utils - Chromium OS vboot utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893866 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added CC|dan.mas...@gmail.com| CC||dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Comment #17 from Dan Mashal --- So does rpmlint. I'm more worried about the licensing. LICENSE file isn't clear, and the f18 scratch build failed: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5046640 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8WgndRnZ47&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914926] New: Review Request: nodejs-passport-oauth - OAuth 1.0 and 2.0 authentication strategies for Passport
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914926 Bug ID: 914926 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-passport-oauth - OAuth 1.0 and 2.0 authentication strategies for Passport Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: t...@compton.nu Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-passport-oauth.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-passport-oauth-0.1.14-2.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: General-purpose OAuth 1.0 and OAuth 2.0 authentication strategies for Passport. This module lets you authenticate using OAuth in your Node.js applications. By plugging into Passport, OAuth authentication can be easily and unobtrusively integrated into any application or framework that supports Connect-style middleware, including Express. Note that this strategy provides generic OAuth support. In many cases, a provider-specific strategy can be used instead, which cuts down on unnecessary configuration, and accommodates any provider-specific quirks. See the list below for supported providers. Developers who need to implement authentication against an OAuth provider that is not already supported are encouraged to sub-class this strategy. If you choose to open source the new provider-specific strategy, send me a message and I will update the list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dDx6DOewTO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914926] Review Request: nodejs-passport-oauth - OAuth 1.0 and 2.0 authentication strategies for Passport
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914926 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||914924, 914925 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oig19kaKNX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914925] Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914925 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||914926 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nNERL4AKX6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914924] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||914926 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hSB54CLGHU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893866] Review Request: vboot-utils - Chromium OS vboot utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893866 --- Comment #18 from Dan Mashal --- Jon, Please host this on your fedora people account instead of dropox for the time being. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3VlpGdPnxA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914923] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914923 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-02-23 08:16:12 --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 914924 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=INOJs9IcAv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914924] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924 --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- *** Bug 914923 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vnVGilodv2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809 Sébastien Willmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||882617 --- Comment #27 from Sébastien Willmann --- Spec URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/seeks/seeks.spec SRPM URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/seeks/seeks-0.4.2-0.3.20130121git9f17d4a.fc18.src.rpm The non-free files are removed in this version. There are two new patches that fix new issues. I opened tickets upstream but their redmine is currently down so I can't find them anymore. This version depends on jsoncpp, which needs a reviewer (bug 882617). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SPoEdF0zss&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882617] Review Request: jsoncpp - An implementation of a JSON reader and writer in C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882617 Sébastien Willmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||678809 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ERF6lVr8YO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678809] Review Request: seeks - A web-search proxy that provides a meta-search engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678809 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8oUdFiE5dX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912099] Review Request: nodejs-fileset - A wrapper around glob and minimatch for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912099 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||912102 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AimxNCEw2P&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912102] Review Request: nodejs-gaze - A globbing fs.watch wrapper built from the best parts of other fine watch libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912102 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Depends On||912099 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5iAJd8wipw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894524] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-console - OpenShift Origin Management Console
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894524 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||908116 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6YVxvn8qbm&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908116] Review Request: openshift-origin-console - The OpenShift Management Console
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908116 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Depends On||894524 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Dw3V39KVy0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892335] Review Request: AudioCuesheetEditor (v0.2.1)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892335 --- Comment #23 from Sven Baus --- Hello? Any Help would be good?! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nZxLZPzT0F&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908116] Review Request: openshift-origin-console - The OpenShift Management Console
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908116
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer ---
A few ( for now ) remarks :
- Provides: openshift-origin-console = %{version}
I think you mean :
Provides: openshift-console = %{version}
( as this would solve obsolete-not-provided and useless-provides, because
providing the package name is likely not what you want )
- why does it need gcc-c++ at run time ? does it compile something ?
- conffile-without-noreplace-flag mean that if someone modify them, then they
will be replaced on upgrade. So that's not really what we want from a
configuration file. So either they are configuration and i can modify them, or
they are not.
- W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
# don't know where it's seeing a binary
the message is "only non binary", so indeed, it doesn't see a binary there :)
FHS would mandate to put in /usr/share but if that's ruby module, it can go to
/usr/lib
- I see the console is running under the uid of apache, so you need
/var/www/.openshift/api.yml. However, having a config file outside of /etc, in
a hidden directory, is pretty bad. The config file is not marked as such, so if
I install the console somewhere, change the location of the broker and upgrade,
my modification will be removed. That's a pretty serious problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IQMChpnWfA&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908116] Review Request: openshift-origin-console - The OpenShift Management Console
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908116 --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer --- Mhh, in fact, i am not sure now, what is the use of /var/www/.openshift/api.yml ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xMIUKJFt86&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908116] Review Request: openshift-origin-console - The OpenShift Management Console
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908116
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer ---
Also, why make the code owned by apache, since this mean the console can erase
its own code, which is usually bad from a security point of view. I would
recommend to run it under a separate uid.
Also /var/www/openshift/console/httpd/console.conf would be better in /etc, as
all configuration file ( so a backup of /etc/ will take care of this ). i also
think we want to get ride of /etc/sysconfig file, so I would to merge it with
the systemd file directly ( like for the init file )
Last :
%{consoledir}/log/production.log
do not seems to be rotated by logrotate, so would grow after some time.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UPEA1shRt6&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914936] New: Review Request: fes - Fast Exhaustive Search
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914936 Bug ID: 914936 Summary: Review Request: fes - Fast Exhaustive Search Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/fes.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/fes-0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This external library implements an efficient implement of exhaustive search to solve systems of low-degree boolean equations. Exhaustive search is asymptotically faster than computing a Groebner basis, except in special cases. This particular implementation is particularly efficient (in the good cases it tests 3 candidate solutions per CPU cycle on each core). Fedora Account System Username: pcpa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QqkaeIeAU1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914937] New: Review Request: nodejs-sphericalmercator - Transformations between Spherical Mercator and Lat/Lon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914937 Bug ID: 914937 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-sphericalmercator - Transformations between Spherical Mercator and Lat/Lon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: t...@compton.nu Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-sphericalmercator.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: Provides projection math for converting between mercator meters, screen pixels (of 256x256 or configurable-size tiles), and latitude/longitude. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uqY45RVhrO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906453] Review Request: bsfilter - Bayesian spam filter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906453 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Thank you for review! I will check your comments later. Now write git request first. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bsfilter Short Description: Bayesian spam filter Owners: mtasaka Branches: f17 f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Du3iTbLmXU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914941] New: Review Request: plasmate - IDE taylored for development of Plasma components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914941 Bug ID: 914941 Summary: Review Request: plasmate - IDE taylored for development of Plasma components Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasmate/plasmate.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasmate/plasmate-1.0-0.2.beta1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A small IDE taylored for development of Plasma components, such as Widgets, Runners, Dataengines. Fedora Account System Username: rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=X9pxjj4y8A&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914941] Review Request: plasmate - IDE taylored for development of Plasma components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914941 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||907993 (kde-4.10), 656997 ||(kde-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wHxEAjna7s&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914941] Review Request: plasmate - IDE taylored for development of Plasma components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914941 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter --- scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5047088 rpmlint *rpm x86_64/*.rpm plasmate.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.2.beta1 ['1.0-0.2.beta1.fc18', '1.0-0.2.beta1'] plasmate.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kde4/apps/plasmate/konqueror.png plasmate.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kde4/apps/plasmate/kmail.png plasmate.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kde4/apps/plasmate/dolphin.png plasmate.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kde4/apps/plasmate/systemsettings.png plasmate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plasmaremoteinstaller plasmate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plasmate plasmate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plasmakconfigxteditor plasmate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kwin-windowswitcherpreviewer plasmate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plasmawallpaperviewer plasmate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plasma-remote-widgets-browser 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 7 warnings. interesting, will have to look into the zero-length .png's with upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=INP76PfgaM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913152] Review Request: MUMPS - A MUltifrontal Massively Parallel sparse direct Solver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913152 --- Comment #8 from Paulo Andrade --- I think the command line is somewhat messed, and should add linker (-Wl) commands before objects, but the -Wl,soname... last in the command line. Order of options (usually) matter when linking. If adding -Wl,-as-needed, it should also come before objects, or it would not consider the object files specified after it, and you would have an underlink issue instead of overlink. Why it must be called libsmumps-4.10.0.so and not libsmumps.so.4.10.0 ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u3nkxjVQib&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811330] Review Request: pcsc-cyberjack - driver for ReinerSCT cyberJack chipcart readers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330 Robert Scheck changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d ||e --- Comment #20 from Robert Scheck --- This Package Change Request is lacking fedora-cvs? no SCM action will ever happen while this is still staying on fedora-cvs+. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Oe6PHayMVi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910235] Review Request: python-pygeoip - Pure Python GeoIP API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910235 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- New upstream release includes docs, readme, license, and tests. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-pygeoip.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-pygeoip-0.2.6-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y48WcgPDCw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894524] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-console - OpenShift Origin Management Console
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894524
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer ---
Hi,a few notes
- why do you put the deps between %if 0%{?fedora}%{?rhel} <= 6 ( as I think
they will not be submitted to RHEL5 ?
- package doesn't build it seems :
+ chmod 755
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-openshift-origin-console-1.2.9-2.fc19.x86_64/%{gem_instdir}/Rakefile'
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-openshift-origin-console-1.2.9-2.fc19.x86_64/%{gem_instdir}/Rakefile':
No such file or directory
erreur : Mauvais statut de sortie pour /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.WSNiH2 (%install)
Erreur de construction de RPM :
Mauvais statut de sortie pour /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.WSNiH2 (%install)
Child return code was: 1
missing requires for the macros ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E7oLN2jMuo&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913152] Review Request: MUMPS - A MUltifrontal Massively Parallel sparse direct Solver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913152 --- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to comment #8) > I think the command line is somewhat messed, and > should add linker (-Wl) commands before objects, but > the -Wl,soname... last in the command line. Order > of options (usually) matter when linking. If > adding -Wl,-as-needed, it should also come > before objects, or it would not consider the object > files specified after it, and you would have an > underlink issue instead of overlink. > > Why it must be called libsmumps-4.10.0.so and not > libsmumps.so.4.10.0 ? At this point, I'm blocked by my knowledges which are limited in this field. You think I had to study for a long time how Makefile.inc are used during compilation and probably it would have not been so difficult for an expert programmer. About command line flags, I've not idea why he who has written the patches then has arranged those flags in that way. :) How would you write that line ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3xf2DCfyc8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913152] Review Request: MUMPS - A MUltifrontal Massively Parallel sparse direct Solver
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913152
--- Comment #10 from Paulo Andrade
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> At this point, I'm blocked by my knowledges which are limited in this field.
> You think I had to study for a long time how Makefile.inc are used during
> compilation and probably it would have not been so difficult for an expert
> programmer.
I think you should focus first on getting the examples
to show something more helpful :-) The error messages
ERROR in MPI_ALLREDUCE, DATATYPE= 7
are not much encouraging.
> About command line flags, I've not idea why he who has written the patches
> then has arranged those flags in that way. :)
Usually this is not much of an issue, and it it only
a rpmlint warning.
There is a small chance of problems if one intends
to run debian binaries in fedora if changing the soname
to match the package version, so, probably better to
not let it be the cause of incompatibility.
> How would you write that line ?
I would experiment a bit, no ready response, but I
would at first move the -Wl,-z,defs earlier in the
command line, and ensure any -L and -l are before
object file names, and also add -Wl,-as-needed.
BTW, you should not hardcode CFLAGS in the SOURCEX
Makefile.*, and instead patch them. Could add a regex
pattern there like @@CFLAGS@@, and in the spec run
sed -e 's|@@CFLAGS@@|%{optflags}|g' -i Makefile.*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=et5CwDqR56&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893866] Review Request: vboot-utils - Chromium OS vboot utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893866 --- Comment #19 from Jon Disnard --- Will make sure to test x86 going forward. The LICENSE file is a standard 3-clause BSD license. That is why the SPEC files has "BSD" for the license type. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause Change log: - put back the patch for c++ printf formating error. - put back gcc-c++ and libstdc++ - fixed i686 build, and tested. Here are the new files: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41369/fedora/SRPMS/vboot-utils-20130222gite6cf2c2-2.fc18.src.rpm http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41369/fedora/SPECS/vboot-utils.spec 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=pcSYAytNIr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913325] Review Request: trac-defaultcc-plugin - Trac plugin to set default CC address(es) by component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913325 Adam Williamson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Adam Williamson --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: trac-defaultcc-plugin Short Description: Trac plugin to set default CC address(es) by component Owners: adamwill kevin Branches: 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=c5VZ7uPin3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910485] Review Request: kajongg - Mah Jongg - the ancient Chinese board game
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910485
nucleo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alekc...@googlemail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from nucleo ---
To distinguish kajongg and kmahjongg maybe better summary will be "Classical
Mah Jongg game for four players" from README.
All files GPLv2+ but modeltest.py GPLv2, README say "Kajongg is covered by the
GNU GPL2 license - see COPYING." Documentation under GFDL license, so
License: GPLv2 and GFDL
License files COPYING.DOC, voices/female2/COPYRIGHT should be added in %doc and
README.
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint kajongg-4.10.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm kajongg-4.10.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
kajongg.spec
kajongg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mah -> Maj, Ah, Mach
kajongg.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/kde4/apps/kajongg/deferredutil.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
kajongg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/kde4/apps/kajongg/server.py
0644L /usr/bin/env
kajongg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kajongg
kajongg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kajonggserver
kajongg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mah -> Maj, Ah, Mach
kajongg.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
kajongg.spec:77: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
All commented lines should be removed including #update-desktop-database
because no MimeType key in kajongg.desktop.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lzB2Y9tBtI&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 871511] Review Request: heimdall - Flash firmware on to Samsung Galaxy S devices
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871511 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SmjIUk5z2C&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852185] Review Request: nfacct - Command line tool to create/retrieve/delete accounting objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852185 --- Comment #12 from Xose Vazquez Perez --- is this bug alive ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9tReM2Lhle&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908389] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter - Horde Text Filter API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908389 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MamIP4QpKB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908389] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter - Horde Text Filter API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908389 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701757 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701757&action=edit php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --bug 908389 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4RXAKDFUGc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908389] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter - Horde Text Filter API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908389 --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701758 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701758&action=edit phpci.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W4v7Xtsg9s&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908389] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter - Horde Text Filter API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908389 --- Comment #5 from Shawn Iwinski --- [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Headers and COPYING explicit use LGPL v2.1 (without "any later" option) So, LGPLv2 (not LGPLv2+) Also, how come package and upstream checksums do not match? # pear download horde/Horde_Text_Filter # cp srpm-unpacked/strip.sh . # ./strip.sh 2.0.5 # sha256sum Horde_Text_Filter-2.0.5-strip.tgz # sha256sum srpm-unpacked/Horde_Text_Filter-2.0.5-strip.tgz CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1b9f3f7a28f8954d52f85fe3e4d30491fd989d26b7cdc13c286ed10228c333bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67272c71eef456b4e05eeaf20c453133a64da4032e12d16044c3557cdf7e681a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1hHpJWQ4aR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877651] Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651 --- Comment #49 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to sagemath 5.7. - Add conditional patch for libgap. - Add conditional patch for fes. - Remove with_sage_ipython conditional. - Add patch to create a libcsage with a soname. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/sagemath/SRPMS/sagemath-5.7-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FrTnhDVMJy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904862] Review Request: php-EasyRdf - A PHP library designed to make it easy to consume and produce RDF
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904862 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-02-23 15:43:27 -- 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=ziI7R7hHQN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904862] Review Request: php-EasyRdf - A PHP library designed to make it easy to consume and produce RDF
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904862 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-EasyRdf-0.7.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oe5SJcvqNg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909588] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Tree - Horde Tree API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909588 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.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=OKinkvrmbn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909588] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Tree - Horde Tree API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909588 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701761 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701761&action=edit php-horde-Horde-Tree-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --bug 909588 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tvkG4zxEdB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909588] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Tree - Horde Tree API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909588 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701762 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701762&action=edit phpci.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iJwYJLBkSh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909588] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Tree - Horde Tree API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909588 --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski --- [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. RPM spec license: LGPLv2 Actual license: GPLv2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9ONQX4pL7w&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993 Benedikt Schäfer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-02-23 15:53:13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SzlnxuwQ50&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909659] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Injector - Horde dependency injection container
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909659 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LHXH7Tnidh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909659] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Injector - Horde dependency injection container
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909659 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701769 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701769&action=edit php-horde-Horde-Injector-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --bug 909659 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8xFzr4LZDj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909659] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Injector - Horde dependency injection container
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909659 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski --- No blockers. = APPROVED = -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wO9EYzpQRh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909659] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Injector - Horde dependency injection container
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909659 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701770 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701770&action=edit phpci.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cJSUwHEBZS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914988] New: Review Request: php-SymfonyCmfRouting - Extends the Symfony2 routing component for dynamic routes and chaining several routers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914988 Bug ID: 914988 Summary: Review Request: php-SymfonyCmfRouting - Extends the Symfony2 routing component for dynamic routes and chaining several routers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/php-SymfonyCmfRouting.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/php-SymfonyCmfRouting-1.0.0-0.1.alpha4.20130121git92ee467.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Symfony CMF Routing component library extends the Symfony2 core routing component. Even though it has Symfony in its name, it does not need the full Symfony2 framework and can be used in standalone projects. For integration with Symfony we provide RoutingExtraBundle. At the core of the Symfony CMF Routing component is the ChainRouter, that is used instead of the Symfony2's default routing system. The ChainRouter can chain several RouterInterface implementations, one after the other, to determine what should handle each request. The default Symfony2 router can be added to this chain, so the standard routing mechanism can still be used. Additionally, this component is meant to provide useful implementations of the routing interfaces. Currently, it provides the DynamicRouter, which uses a RequestMatcherInterface to dynamically load Routes, and can apply RouteEnhancerInterface strategies in order to manipulate them. The provided NestedMatcher can dynamically retrieve Symfony2 Route objects from a RouteProviderInterface. This interfaces abstracts a collection of Routes, that can be stored in a database, like Doctrine PHPCR-ODM or Doctrine ORM. The DynamicRouter also uses a UrlGenerator instance to generate Routes and an implementation is provided under ProviderBasedGenerator that can generate routes loaded from a RouteProviderInterface instance, and the ContentAwareGenerator on top of it to determine the route object from a content object. Fedora Account System Username: siwinski -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RelxhjPuqU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914988] Review Request: php-SymfonyCmfRouting - Extends the Symfony2 routing component for dynamic routes and chaining several routers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914988 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com Alias||SymfonyCmfRouting -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jJvB2jITOR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909662] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-View - Horde View API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909662 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- $ rpmlint ./php-horde-Horde-View-2.0.2-1.remi.src.rpm php-horde-Horde-View.src: E: unknown-key GPG#00f97f56 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. When searching for GPG key 00f97f56 it is marked as revoked. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6hyLwOtIKI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909706] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Vfs- Virtual File System API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909706 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oNQlN94zBM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909706] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Vfs- Virtual File System API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909706 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701782 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701782&action=edit php-horde-Horde-Vfs-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --bug 909706 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gHF8VHuoOq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909706] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Vfs- Virtual File System API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909706 --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski --- Created attachment 701783 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=701783&action=edit phpci.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=adUCd8h9bZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909706] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Vfs- Virtual File System API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909706 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Shawn Iwinski --- [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) Need to wait for dependencies before import. No blockers. = APPROVED = -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mpGmGPNKu9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912833] Review Request: php-channel-dropbox-php - Adds the Dropbox-PHP channel to PEAR
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912833
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Please use "%{name}.xml" instead of "%{channelname}.xml".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=covsdPiU6S&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest-cpp - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #3 from François Cami --- Thank you Luke. I've changed the package name and added a unittest++.pc file generated from a template. Please let me know what you think. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++-1.4-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OCx0iwijd9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 François Cami changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |unittest-cpp - Lightweight |unittest++.spec - |unit testing framework for |Lightweight unit testing |C++ |framework for C++ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ahAl2B5Evc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914996] New: Review Request: gitstats - Generates statistics based on GIT repository activity
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914996 Bug ID: 914996 Summary: Review Request: gitstats - Generates statistics based on GIT repository activity Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: sgor...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~sgordon/gitstats.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~sgordon/gitstats-0.1-20130223gitaa77a89.fc18.src.rpm Description: GitStats is a statistics generator for git (a distributed revision control system) repositories. It examines the repository and produces some interesting statistics from the history of it. Currently HTML is the only output format. Fedora Account System Username: sgordon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=R47MadtbQa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914996] Review Request: gitstats - Generates statistics based on GIT repository activity
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914996 --- Comment #1 from Stephen Gordon --- $ rpmlint gitstats.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gitstats-0.1-20130223gitaa77a89.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint gitstats-0.1-20130223gitaa77a89.fc18.noarch.rpm gitstats.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gitstats 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9JzKy8JgLN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914996] Review Request: gitstats - Generates statistics based on GIT repository activity
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914996 --- Comment #2 from Stephen Gordon --- NB: When reviewing the sources to determine the license I found that while the documentation files shipped by upstream list GPLv2 and GPLv3 one of the files is licensed under the MIT license. I have raised a ticket with upstream to address this omission in the licenses file and noted all three licenses in the spec file: https://github.com/hoxu/gitstats/issues/13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gC7HPvLZ0H&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914996] Review Request: gitstats - Generates statistics based on GIT repository activity
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914996 --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gordon --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5048859 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mQhoLC4txK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913289] Review Request: gimp-separate+ - A plug-in providing rudimentary CMYK support for The GIMP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289
Luya Tshimbalanga changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 listsysted in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. sRGB.cc should not be bundled
because colord already provides it. Perhaps addid colord-devel as build
require?
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
"Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/luya/Projects/fedora-package-review/913289-gimp-
separate+/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 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: Multiple BuildRoot definitions found
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides
[Bug 913289] Review Request: gimp-separate+ - A plug-in providing rudimentary CMYK support for The GIMP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289
--- Comment #4 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 listsysted in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. sRGB.cc should not be bundled
because colord already provides it. Perhaps addid colord-devel as build
require?
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
"Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/luya/Projects/fedora-package-review/913289-gimp-
separate+/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 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: Multiple BuildRoot definitions found
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement o
[Bug 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 --- Comment #6 from Adam Williamson --- OK, so here's my first dumb support question: according to the docs, opendmarc "does not itself do DKIM or SPF evaluation" - http://www.trusteddomain.org/opendmarc/opendmarc.8.html . So when configuring postfix, you're told "Note that this must come after filters that do DKIM and SPF evaluation, as this filter relies on the addition of authentication results data to the header by upstream filters." Okay, fine. Obviously we use opendkim as our DKIM milter, that's straightforward enough. But what do we use for SPF? I can't find any SPF milter packaged in Fedora. The candidates appear to be gmilt and smf-spf, but we don't have either of those. Is it just me, or are the opendmarc 'how to deploy' docs pretty incomplete? There's no kind of information on a recommended DKIM / SPF milter setup, and I also feel like it's somehow missing instructions on database configuration - it seems like the report generation stuff possibly requires a database, somehow, but I just don't see any instructions on how to set that up. Do you actually have a working opendmarc config set up over there? Did you find any better docs? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1nQ1KJTYyH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893165] Review Request: mod_qos - Quality of service module for Apache
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893165 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1grnOflVcN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893165] Review Request: mod_qos - Quality of service module for Apache
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893165 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- mod_qos-10.13-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_qos-10.13-4.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SfXxCWsPI4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893165] Review Request: mod_qos - Quality of service module for Apache
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893165 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- mod_qos-10.13-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_qos-10.13-4.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=roEnKXHzgc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814458] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814458 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TihYPS7K8C&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814458] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814458 --- Comment #11 from Rich Mattes --- I'm still willing to finish reviewing this package. Tim, are you still willing to maintain this package, or should someone else take it over? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HfdF9H4D1M&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878188] Review Request: qt5-qtbase - Qt5 - QtBase components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878188 --- Comment #35 from Rex Dieter --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtbase.spec SRPM URL: Description: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtbase-5.0.1-3.fc18.src.rpm %changelog * Sat Feb 23 2013 Rex Dieter 5.0.1-3 - +%%_qt5_libexecdir * Sat Feb 23 2013 Rex Dieter 5.0.1-2 - macros.qt5: fix %%_qt5_headerdir, %%_qt5_datadir, %%_qt5_plugindir -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=atqjn5oo4X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915005] New: Review Request: qt5-qttools - Qt5 - QtTool components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915005 Bug ID: 915005 Summary: Review Request: qt5-qttools - Qt5 - QtTool components Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qttools.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qttools-5.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Qt5 - QtTool components Fedora Account System Username: rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZUZ73XsiaN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878188] Review Request: qt5-qtbase - Qt5 - QtBase components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878188 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||915005 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kGR9CG78ZT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915005] Review Request: qt5-qttools - Qt5 - QtTool components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915005 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Depends On||878188 (qt5-qtbase,qtbase) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OgUjxeM6E5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] New: Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 Bug ID: 915006 Summary: Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtwebkit.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Qt5 - QtWebKit components Fedora Account System Username: rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Yc68mFVK4H&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878188] Review Request: qt5-qtbase - Qt5 - QtBase components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878188 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||915006 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wZLwlde45p&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Depends On||878188 (qt5-qtbase,qtbase) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uCJ4RICPXh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915009] New: Review Request: rubygem-ruby-pcap - Ruby interface to LBL Packet Capture library.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915009 Bug ID: 915009 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ruby-pcap - Ruby interface to LBL Packet Capture library. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: skott...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://skottler.fedorapeople.org//rubygem-ruby-pcap.spec SRPM URL: http://skottler.fedorapeople.org//rubygem-ruby-pcap-0.7.8-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Ruby interface to LBL Packet Capture library. This library also includes classes to access packet header fields. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5hkVWXx6Lv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915009] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-pcap - Ruby interface to LBL Packet Capture library.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915009 --- Comment #1 from Sam Kottler --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5049110 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nxmvd8s4cH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909713] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-History - API for tracking the history of an object
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909713 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- $ rpmlint ./php-horde-Horde-History-2.0.1-2.remi.src.rpm php-horde-Horde-History.src: E: unknown-key GPG#00f97f56 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. When searching for GPG key 00f97f56 it is marked as revoked. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZBOlxkBRCl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909907] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Crypt - Horde Cryptography API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909907 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yV5NVFwGfF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
