[Bug 916072] New: Review Request: opencl-headers - OpenCL header files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916072 Bug ID: 916072 Summary: Review Request: opencl-headers - OpenCL header files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: airl...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/opencl/opencl-headers.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/opencl/opencl-headers-1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: OpenCL header files from Khronos, required to build other OpenCL projects like pocl/libclc etc. Fedora Account System Username: airlied -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jbVK0VfQA4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894176] Review Request: wbox - HTTP testing tool and configuration-less HTTP server
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894176
Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|prais...@redhat.com
QA Contact|prais...@redhat.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #5 from Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com ---
Hello again, package seems to be OK to me.
I just would trim some trailing whitespaces and better document where the
wbox.1 manual page comes from. Note that spec file from srpm has some
white-space changes so posted spec differs from the one packed in srpm.
Pavel
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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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:
BSD (3 clause). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/praiskup/packages/wbox/review1/894176-wbox/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest
[Bug 916072] Review Request: opencl-headers - OpenCL header files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916072 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||yan...@declera.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yan...@declera.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Looks good now. Builds in mock. Doesn't conflict with anything # rpmlint opencl-headers.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Khronos - Kimonos opencl-headers.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Khronos - Kimonos opencl-headers.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2-0 ['1.2-1.fc19', '1.2-1'] opencl-headers.noarch: W: no-documentation opencl-headers.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Khronos - Kimonos opencl-headers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Khronos - Kimonos 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. The incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2-0 should really be changed to 1.2-1 Group: should probably be removed #define gitdate 20120424looks unused 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=AzSWORT9iMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911229] Review Request: nodejs-vows - Asynchronous behaviour-driven development (BDD) and continuous integration
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911229
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
lib/assert/error.js - adapted from mocha
lib/assert/utils.js - taken from node/lib/assert.js
lib/utils/wildcard.js - looks like it may have come from somewhere?
lib/vows/coverage/report-html.js - adapted from mocha
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
lib/utils/wildcard.js - under Apache 2.0
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Checking: nodejs-vows-0.7.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
nodejs-vows-0.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
nodejs-vows.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour - behavior
nodejs-vows.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vows
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package functions as
[Bug 827818] Review Request: seivot - Benchmarking tool for backup programs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827818 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Package Change Request == Package Name: seivot New Branches: el6 Owners: salimma -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EmV89Z8nHea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
lib/browser/diff.js - looks like it may have been copied
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
The png files in images are used by _mocha.js
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
The .html and .jade files in lib should be in %{_datadir}
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
lib/browser/diff.js - what does the missing license.txt say?
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary _mocha
mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mocha
One final observation - do we really want _mocha in /usr/bin or should
that just be in the node module bin dir?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
[Bug 916087] New: Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 Bug ID: 916087 Summary: Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: jue...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://juergh.fedorapeople.org/review/cloud-initramfs-0.20-0.1.bzr85/cloud-initramfs.spec SRPM URL: http://juergh.fedorapeople.org/review/cloud-initramfs-0.20-0.1.bzr85/cloud-initramfs-0.20-0.1.bzr85.fc18.src.rpm Description: cloud image initramfs management utilities Fedora Account System Username: juergh Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5060243 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KeohGnk5xma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916072] Review Request: opencl-headers - OpenCL header files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916072 Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: opencl-headers Short Description: OpenCL development headers Owners: airlied Branches: f18 InitialCC: xgl-maint -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=F0Pz2nD3EMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916072] Review Request: opencl-headers - OpenCL header files
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916072
--- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com ---
must own the includedir too..
%dir %{_includedir}/CL
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=R9J3vLvoPja=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@sandro-mathys.ch --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch --- Since the subpackage is only just installing a dracut module, I wonder whether the subpackage shouldn't be named dracut-growroot instead of cloud-initramfs-growroot. It's true that the SRPM (and spec file) have to be named like upstream but plugins and modules are usually named after the tool they are used for. Also, I think an additional /etc/dracut.conf.d/xx-growroot.conf to automatically enable inclusion of the module in new initramfs builds would make sense. IMHO that's what someone would expect to happen after one installed the package. That's only some food for thought, not a formal 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=RYEQsLae2Xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915337] Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915337 Palle Ravn ravn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||nmon, -, performance, ||monitor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Jxoc0apez8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915337] Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915337 Palle Ravn ravn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|-, monitor, performance | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=f15nOwPegAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881096] Review Request: openstack-packstack - OpenStack Install utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881096 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openstack-packstack-2012.2.3-0.1.dev454.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstack-packstack-2012.2.3-0.1.dev454.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=JjiOseK0c8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mat...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #1) Since the subpackage is only just installing a dracut module, I wonder whether the subpackage shouldn't be named dracut-growroot instead of cloud-initramfs-growroot. It's true that the SRPM (and spec file) have to be named like upstream but plugins and modules are usually named after the tool they are used for. Is that submodule useful outside of cloud-init on its own, or does it need other stuff? If the former, yeah, that makes sense. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1BniROdBhsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mat...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com --- Followup question: do we want to include some of the other modules here while we're at it? Maybe rescuevol? Not all of them make sense, and don't want to block this on that. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XriUSTiLZDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 896101] Review Request: inital-setup - The replacement for firstboot utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896101 Martin Sivák msi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(m...@zarb.org) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5YZNcN0lNWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827818] Review Request: seivot - Benchmarking tool for backup programs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827818 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YmOdsYaYUBa=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 #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=85KcMlfNffa=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 #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8zcMVLqJVfa=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 #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ptgnYF8Ne1a=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 #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d97sTA6VPOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907909] Review Request: glassfish.el-api - a package of javax.el-api
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907909
Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
See http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-February/002079.html
for
details about decistion
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= 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
[Bug 909907] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Crypt - Horde Cryptography API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909907 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qJm8nFgeeTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907688] Review Request: python-urllib3 - Python HTTP library with thread-safe connection pooling and file post
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907688 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rb...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6TrViSaYGaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915074] Review Request: fedocal - A web based calendar application
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915074 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lsdHUJELxKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916072] Review Request: opencl-headers - OpenCL header files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916072 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LpT3Lu2q6Xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909887] Review Request: gnome-connection-manager - A tabbed ssh connection manager for gtk+ environments (Python Application)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909887 --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk --- Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-connection-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gnome-connection-manager-1.1.0-3.fc18.src.rpm Add BR/R on vte. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MzP0kAcXpua=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 Stephen Gordon sgor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Stephen Gordon sgor...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gitstats Short Description: Generates statistics based on GIT repository activity Owners: sgordon Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4VwrMFiiXha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #4 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com --- I notice that this puts everything under /usr/share/dracut. Shouldn't that be /usr/lib/dracut? (Also, it shouldn't own /usr/lib/dracut and /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d, because dracut already does.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IB7QedTHbGa=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 #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sNTVo8OVE8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087
--- Comment #5 from Juerg Haefliger jue...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I notice that this puts everything under /usr/share/dracut. Shouldn't that
be /usr/lib/dracut?
Hmm... it's /usr/lib for Fedora 18 and /usr/share for RHEL6. When I built it
locally under Fedora 18 it was correctly using /usr/lib but the koji built is
using /usr/share. What gives? Am I using the wrong macro (%{_datadir})?
(Also, it shouldn't own /usr/lib/dracut and
/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d, because dracut already does.)
So I need to use something like the following in the %files section?
%{_datadir}/dracut/modules.d/*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hiPASkZWiPa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | Flags|needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #46 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- Sorry, jslint is gone now, so lifting FE-Legal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mXSkbbpqCia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #6 from Juerg Haefliger jue...@gmail.com --- Is that submodule useful outside of cloud-init on its own, or does it need other stuff? If the former, yeah, that makes sense. It can be used outside of cloud-init but it requires cloud-utils which provides the growpart script. Not sure how much sense this makes in a non-cloud image though. Wouldn't a name like dracut-growroot suggest that this is a dracut subpackage? Note that I'm not strictly following the convention that the package name should match upstream since upstream is named cloud-initramfs-tools. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sgphSG1wR1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907688] Review Request: python-urllib3 - Python HTTP library with thread-safe connection pooling and file post
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907688 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Here is a new release that: - Renames the patches appropriately with python-urllib3- prefixes. - Fixes ssl check patch to use the correct cert path for Fedora. - Includes a new dependency on ca-certificates. - Makes cosmetic indentation changes to the .spec for readability. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-urllib3.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-urllib3-1.5-3.fc18.src.rpm Rebuilt on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5061070 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ze3pX8gXrka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #7 from Juerg Haefliger jue...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #1) Also, I think an additional /etc/dracut.conf.d/xx-growroot.conf to automatically enable inclusion of the module in new initramfs builds would make sense. IMHO that's what someone would expect to happen after one installed the package. I'm not following you. The module does get included on the next initramfs build since the check() function from module-setup.sh returns 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=07LRwnZEnKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087
--- Comment #8 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Hmm... it's /usr/lib for Fedora 18 and /usr/share for RHEL6. When I built it
locally under Fedora 18 it was correctly using /usr/lib but the koji built
is using /usr/share. What gives? Am I using the wrong macro (%{_datadir})?
Hmmm I'm getting /usr/share both in mock under F18 and built from my home dir.
To my knowledge, %{_datadir} is /usr/share in all versions of Fedora. To get
arch-independent lib, I don't think there's anything better than
%{_prefix}/lib/.
(Also, it shouldn't own /usr/lib/dracut and
/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d, because dracut already does.)
So I need to use something like the following in the %files section?
%{_datadir}/dracut/modules.d/*
Well, my preference is to not use wildcards at all. That can cause a little bit
more work if the upstream changes, but helps keep accidental junk from creeping
in -- and lets you easily tell if something changed and you didn't expect it
to.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=w69t7gBMTra=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #47 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Great! things look swell from my perspective, APPROVED. we can haggle any remaining runtime wrinkles post-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=kwj5Q6Zmpqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #9 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #6) It can be used outside of cloud-init but it requires cloud-utils which provides the growpart script. Not sure how much sense this makes in a non-cloud image though. Could be used for something where a prebuilt image is copied to physical hardware, right? Wouldn't a name like dracut-growroot suggest that this is a dracut subpackage? Note that I'm not strictly following the convention that the package name should match upstream since upstream is named cloud-initramfs-tools. Well, there's a dracut-modules-olpc. Maybe one of the dracut maintainers has an opinion here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Zyv8c7aRzOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910519] Review Request: kolf - A miniature golf game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910519 Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jwh...@codeweavers.com --- Comment #1 from Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com --- New prospective packager here, diligently trying to review other packages. I took a look, but was unable to build due to a lack of libkdegames-devel. Most likely operator error on my part. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OtNm2HCBTva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087
--- Comment #10 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch ---
New feedback to the spec file:
The Requires _need_ to be *under* the %package line. Right now the Requires
count towards the *main* package (which is never built) and the subpackage
doesn't have any Requires.
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
I notice that this puts everything under /usr/share/dracut. Shouldn't that
be /usr/lib/dracut?
Hmm... it's /usr/lib for Fedora 18 and /usr/share for RHEL6. When I built it
locally under Fedora 18 it was correctly using /usr/lib but the koji built
is using /usr/share. What gives? Am I using the wrong macro (%{_datadir})?
Something's wrong with your F18 then ;) %_datadir should always point to
/usr/share. Go with %{_prefix}/lib for Fedora.
(Also, it shouldn't own /usr/lib/dracut and
/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d, because dracut already does.)
So I need to use something like the following in the %files section?
%{_datadir}/dracut/modules.d/*
Yes. Or, since it's only two files, specify both with the complete path (on two
lines).
(In reply to comment #6)
Is that submodule useful outside of cloud-init on its own, or does it need
other stuff? If the former, yeah, that makes sense.
It can be used outside of cloud-init but it requires cloud-utils which
provides the growpart script. Not sure how much sense this makes in a
non-cloud image though.
It can technically, that's what counts. IMHO :)
Wouldn't a name like dracut-growroot suggest that this is a dracut
subpackage? Note that I'm not strictly following the convention that the
package name should match upstream since upstream is named
cloud-initramfs-tools.
I don't think it does suggest that. For example, most perl-* or R-* or any
language-* are not subpackages but separate SRPMS. Matt is right though, it
should be dracut-modules-growroot. Why -growroot and not -growpart (like
the tool that is used), though? If that's an upstream decision, okay.
Is there any reason it's not called cloud-initramfs-tools, then? If not, that
needs to be fixed. The guideline is rather strict.
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #1)
Also, I think an additional /etc/dracut.conf.d/xx-growroot.conf to
automatically enable inclusion of the module in new initramfs builds would
make sense. IMHO that's what someone would expect to happen after one
installed the package.
I'm not following you. The module does get included on the next initramfs
build since the check() function from module-setup.sh returns 0.
Seems to work, so you probably know better how that works than me. Taking my
comment back. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zTFHJYSbI2a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910519] Review Request: kolf - A miniature golf game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910519 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Jeremy, libkdegames is currently only available in rawhide, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=15455 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3iyFmiHJxva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673
Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwh...@codeweavers.com
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com ---
New potential packager, doing informal reviews as requested in 'How to get
sponsored'.
Full review included below; the only major point I noticed was a lack of
Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries.
A minor nit - the guidelines say 'MUST' run desktop-file-install; this .spec
only does a desktop-file-validate. Not sure if this spec or the guidelines
should change...
Cheers,
Jeremy
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
[x] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[x] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[x] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[x] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[x] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[x] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[x] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[?] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[x] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[x] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[x] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[-] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[!] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
%{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/org.gnome.swell-foop.gschema.xml
[x] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[x] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[x] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[x] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[x] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[-] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[x] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[!] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include
[Bug 910519] Review Request: kolf - A miniature golf game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910519 --- Comment #3 from Jeremy White jwh...@codeweavers.com --- Ah. I imagined that since the srpm name included fc18, that a review on fc18 was appropriate. I now see the bug 'Version' field, which I should have used instead of the name. Thanks for educating me, and sorry for the noise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Z9hr40f64xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892315] Review Request: rubygem-webrobots - Ruby library to help write robots.txt compliant web robots
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892315 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dpie...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dpie...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vCrd2NumTia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087
--- Comment #11 from Juerg Haefliger jue...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Something's wrong with your F18 then ;)
Well that would be Matt's cloud image then since that's what I'm running :-)
%_datadir should always point to
/usr/share. Go with %{_prefix}/lib for Fedora.
Got it.
(Also, it shouldn't own /usr/lib/dracut and
/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d, because dracut already does.)
So I need to use something like the following in the %files section?
%{_datadir}/dracut/modules.d/*
Yes. Or, since it's only two files, specify both with the complete path (on
two lines).
Yep, makes sense.
I don't think it does suggest that. For example, most perl-* or R-* or any
language-* are not subpackages but separate SRPMS. Matt is right though, it
should be dracut-modules-growroot. Why -growroot and not -growpart (like
the tool that is used), though? If that's an upstream decision, okay.
Because the module specifically grows (only) the root partition (using the
growpart script from cloud-utils).
Is there any reason it's not called cloud-initramfs-tools, then? If not,
that needs to be fixed. The guideline is rather strict.
Ok. I was under the impression that a subpackage always needs to include the
name of the parent package which would have resulted in
cloud-initramfs-tools-growpart which I though was a rather awkward name :-)
Will fix.
So do I need to open a new review request since the package names changes?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3e5zxcgx66a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #12 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #11) Something's wrong with your F18 then ;) Well that would be Matt's cloud image then since that's what I'm running :-) Weird. Cannot reproduce. Ok. I was under the impression that a subpackage always needs to include the name of the parent package which would have resulted in cloud-initramfs-tools-growpart which I though was a rather awkward name :-) Will fix. Yeah, you can use %package -n to change the base name. So do I need to open a new review request since the package names changes? Nope. Just edit this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sZlEHLqnQEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892315] Review Request: rubygem-webrobots - Ruby library to help write robots.txt compliant web robots
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892315
Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[X] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
webrobots-doc
The Require in -doc does not include %{?_isa}.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[X]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[X]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[X]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[X]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[X]: Package 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
[X]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[X]: Package installs properly.
[X]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Ruby:
[-]: 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
The latest version is 0.1.0, the proposed package is 0.0.13.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[X]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[X]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in
[Bug 877651] Review Request: sagemath - A free open-source mathematics software system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877651 --- Comment #53 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- Does it need python-ipython, or merely python-ipython-console? (The only uses I have found so far need the latter, not the former.) And I echo comment 50. You've done a LOT of work on this package. Give yourself a pat on the back. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sSrAENzbrpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892315] Review Request: rubygem-webrobots - Ruby library to help write robots.txt compliant web robots
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892315 --- Comment #2 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- Ugh, sorry, my comments got inserted into the wrong spot above: Two things to fix in the specfile. Please fix those issues before pushing the first build. PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sfynxNfsaoa=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 Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-4.fc18.src.rpm - License: I'm not sure where I got it from, but I could have sworn that GPL thing was the correct license for Ruby. But you are right, and I changed it. It is now (Ruby or BSD) and Public Domain, just like ruby. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2zJ1fzSMjsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912834] Review Request: php-pear-Dropbox - Library for integrating dropbox with PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912834 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|jmarr...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo?(jmarr...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- resetting assignee - Shawn you can take it if you want -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vvrj04As4Ba=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 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|jmarr...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo?(jmarr...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #3 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- resetting assignee - Shawn you can take it if you want -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tnKqRaSko6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902017] Review Request: openshift-java-client - OpenShift Java Client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902017 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Hi, there are some licensing problems with this package - POM file declares the license to be ASL 2.0, but the ./license file and most of the files say EPL, Base64Coder is a class available in the base64coder package already in Fedora etc., so I will talk to upstream (I am a Red Hat employee) to correct this before I proceed with the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cGDOtWkHU7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911673] Review Request: swell-foop - GNOME colored tiles puzzle game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911673 --- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #2) the only major point I noticed was a lack of Requires for any of the gtk/glib libraries. The whole glib/gtk stack is standard shared libraries. RPM does auto-generate Requires on shared libraries on build time and they must not be listed explicitly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9zlaenmIsoa=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
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-openshift-origin-console.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-openshift-origin-console-1.4.9-3.fc18.src.rpm
- Updated to the latest stable release
-- This fixed the missing rubygems-devel issue, the reason behind the macro's
not being installed.
- Removed the top lines
%if 0%{?fedora}%{?rhel} = 6
%global scl ruby193
%global scl_prefix ruby193-
%endif
-- This is in response to a discussion with Vit on a different openshift origin
rubygem.
- Removed everything in the %if 0%{?fedora}%{?rhel} = 6 section. We do not
plan on this going into EPEL 5 or 6, so it isn't needed.
-- I will talk to upstream about taking this out, because it doesn't make
sense. Why would RHEL has such drastically different dependencies than Fedora.
I think it is just leftover from some testing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZwxkAO62JRa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909644] Review Request: python-websocket-client - WebSocket client for python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909644 Palle Ravn ravn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ravn...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Palle Ravn ravn...@gmail.com --- Upstream is at v0.9.0 now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=81RteMIKjga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908357] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Wbxml - Provides an API for encoding and decoding WBXML documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908357 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-02-27 13:02:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u6bnrMdWp1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909644] Review Request: python-websocket-client - WebSocket client for python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909644 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Thanks! Repackaged latest upstream. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-websocket-client.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-websocket-client-0.9.0-1.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=jFIvI6YnDfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785483] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-SyncMl - API for processing SyncML requests
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785483 Bug 785483 depends on bug 908357, which changed state. Bug 908357 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Wbxml - Provides an API for encoding and decoding WBXML documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908357 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1G5vAjlTk4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908357] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Wbxml - Provides an API for encoding and decoding WBXML documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908357 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-Horde-Xml-Wbxml-2.0.1-3.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=BBx9snhnOea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908371] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Diff - Engine for performing and rendering text diffs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908371 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-02-27 13:03:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0YISMTIdi7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908371] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Diff - Engine for performing and rendering text diffs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908371 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-Horde-Text-Diff-2.0.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DU8ai8wpBla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874677] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Rpc - Horde RPC API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874677 Bug 874677 depends on bug 908361, which changed state. Bug 908361 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Element - Horde Xml Element object https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908361 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dAtvySYz9ta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908361] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Element - Horde Xml Element object
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908361 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-Horde-Xml-Element-2.0.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QRuNtd0eSKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908361] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Xml-Element - Horde Xml Element object
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908361 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-02-27 13:05:42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NI7I9Ps8SUa=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 --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Gregor -- Please fix comment #1 and I will review as soon as I can. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MavmB9L8gVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755065] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy0.7 - compat package
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755065 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Log into the web ui, and click Take Ownership. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KBBM8UMbNsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912834] Review Request: php-pear-Dropbox - Library for integrating dropbox with PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912834 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||912833 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Per PHP package naming guidelines [1], please rename this package to php-ChannelAlias-PackageName -- i.e. php-dropbox-php-Dropbox. Afterwards I will review as soon as I can. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qncsOX62PHa=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 shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||912834 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Rsg3SLIj8oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC|tingp...@tingping.se| Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #48 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: owncloud Short Description: Private file sync and share server Owners: brummbq Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC: thanks to everyone involved in this 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=afLvRgHv5Pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914793] Review Request: python-kajiki - Really fast well-formed xml templates
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914793 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|terje...@phys.ntnu.no 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=J5JMUTgQ78a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 --- Comment #49 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=67wfWhI4iAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891232] nodejs-ronn - markdown to roff/html converter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891232 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3fntGhALCHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914793] Review Request: python-kajiki - Really fast well-formed xml templates
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914793
--- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no ---
Summary:
- package is good except license issues:
a) would be good if upstream had more license info than a single word in
setup.py.
b) would be nice to include the license text in full
c) and license header in each source would be good too.
d) lnotab.py has the following:
# Comment copied from Python/compile.c:
#
# All about a_lnotab.
# ...
Not sure about license of comments.
Comment?
pedantic: some unwanted extra empty lines in spec file.
Full review:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n
python3-kajiki
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines.
Some extra space some places, nothing major.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Just spelling, ignore.
[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}
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[Bug 891232] nodejs-ronn - markdown to roff/html converter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891232 --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Isn't the markdown.js file bundling? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xLRQxpzGrna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891232] nodejs-ronn - markdown to roff/html converter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891232 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g ||mail.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AoWyzWn3nra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912834] Review Request: php-pear-Dropbox - Library for integrating dropbox with PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912834 --- Comment #4 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/php-dropbox-php-Dropbox.spec SRPM URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/php-dropbox-php-Dropbox-1.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm sweet, let me also know if I can review something in exchange -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SuyZ8BRrbAa=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 --- Comment #5 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- Spec URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/php-channel-dropbox-php.spec SRPM URL: http://brummbq.fedorapeople.org/php-channel-dropbox-php-1.3-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YPKs5khAuCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909644] Review Request: python-websocket-client - WebSocket client for python
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909644
--- Comment #4 from Palle Ravn ravn...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/packager/temp/909644-python-websocket-client/licensecheck.txt
Only requirement for this is that upstream is informed about the issue.
see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
websocket_client in %files should be %{distname} for consistent use.
[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.
[?]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
Note: Tested with examples from upstream and it works just fine.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #13 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch --- Also, please make the description a little more descriptive than just copying the summary. I'd suggest something along: This dracut module will re-write the partition table of a disk so that the root partition has as much space as possible, bumping it up to the edge of the disk, or the edge of the next partition. Text taken from the README file, s/initramfs/dracut/. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qd4YM63bbsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #14 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch --- (In reply to comment #12) Yeah, you can use %package -n to change the base name. Just to make things clear: you'll need to -n dracut-modules-growroot every macro that refers directly to the subpackage (%description, %files, ...) not only %package :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wm9T55dvS8a=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 #17 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- (In reply to comment #16) 3. The variable OPTL appears to be the best place to use -Wl,-as-needed, that is, the pseudo patch: -OPTL= -O -OPTL= -Wl,-as-needed These flags now are inserted directly in 'shared-mumps.patch' for 'libopen-pal' and 'libopen-rte' libraries expressly indicated; this repairs the problem during installation already mentioned since first comment (#1). As well it repairs 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings already mentioned in comment#4: MUMPS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libdmumps-4.10.0.so libopen-pal.so.4 MUMPS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsmumps-4.10.0.so libopen-pal.so.4 Furthermore, I've added '-Wuninitialized -Wno-maybe-uninitialized' in shared-mumps.patch to silence '-Wmaybe-uninizialized' warnings. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS-4.10.0-6.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=8Y3yVKcSDHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914793] Review Request: python-kajiki - Really fast well-formed xml templates
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914793 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- I submitted a pull request with the full text of the MIT license: https://sourceforge.net/p/kajiki/mercurial/merge-requests/2/ Also, I opened a ticket about the license headers and the comment licensing: https://sourceforge.net/p/kajiki/tickets/33/ I can take care of those extra empty lines before import. Are there any other issues standing in the way of approval? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YuJmhULwYPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909644] Review Request: python-websocket-client - WebSocket client for python
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909644
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com ---
Thanks Palle. Yeah, I think you don't get full rights to officially review
packages yet. You must be a member of the packagers group in FAS. However,
the comments are definitely welcome and are a good way to become a
fully-certified packager yourself:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer
I'll clean up that hardcoded %{distname} you caught in the next release.
Just a thought: Your sidenote at the bottom is relatively hard to find for
someone just glancing over this BZ issue. I would place it at the very top
next time so it gives the reader context for your review.
Also, the item from fedora-review that produced a Fail (a [!]), I would
collect that and any other failures and also paste them at the top of the
review just so a reader can get the big picture first, before scanning through
all the review items.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2HK26Z61s9a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909644] Review Request: python-websocket-client - WebSocket client for python
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909644
--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com ---
New release:
- Replaced hardcoded websocket_client with %{eggname}
- Removes some unnecessary newlines from the .spec.
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-websocket-client.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-websocket-client-0.9.0-2.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=7UYKKztbWga=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916327] New: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI - Class::DBI - Simple Database Abstraction
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916327 Bug ID: 916327 Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-DBI - Class::DBI - Simple Database Abstraction Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: phil...@redfish-solutions.com Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/perl-Class-DBI.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/perl-Class-DBI-3.0.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Packaging of Class::DBI 3.0.17 (current) to rawhide and EPEL-6. Provides an alternate interface to databases from DBD::MySQL, etc. Fedora Account System Username: philipp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ETWNwvNozFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916327] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI - Class::DBI - Simple Database Abstraction
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916327 Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://search.cpan.org/~tmt ||m/Class-DBI-v3.0.17/lib/Cla ||ss/DBI.pm CC||philipp@redfish-solutions.c ||om --- Comment #1 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- [philipp@builder perl-Class-DBI]$ rpmlint perl-Class-DBI.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [philipp@builder perl-Class-DBI]$ rpmlint perl-Class-DBI-3.0.17-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [philipp@builder perl-Class-DBI]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PBs5ZbPalZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916327] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI - Class::DBI - Simple Database Abstraction
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916327 --- Comment #2 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- [philipp@builder perl-Class-DBI]$ rpmlint perl-Class-DBI-3.0.17-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [philipp@builder perl-Class-DBI]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tEHs0gkQHza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916327] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI - Class::DBI - Simple Database Abstraction
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916327 --- Comment #3 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- Doh. Wrong rpm. Trying again: [philipp@builder perl-Class-DBI]$ rpmlint perl-Class-DBI-3.0.17-1.fc19.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [philipp@builder perl-Class-DBI]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qwIi6SyJeVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915337] Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915337 --- Comment #2 from Palle Ravn ravn...@gmail.com --- Files moved to better download location. Spec URL: http://nmon.zom.dk/nmon.spec SRPM URL: http://nmon.zom.dk/nmon-14g-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=fDGXkQsTE6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914793] Review Request: python-kajiki - Really fast well-formed xml templates
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914793 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Nice! Thanks for quick reply. Package python-kajiki is 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=8j8Uern1FOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916327] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI - Class::DBI - Simple Database Abstraction
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916327 --- Comment #4 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- And... it looks like I had a corrupted repo.xml and... there's already a packaging for perl-Class-DBI out there. Well, all the better. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xWUcQVmwHDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914793] Review Request: python-kajiki - Really fast well-formed xml templates
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914793 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-kajiki Short Description: Really fast well-formed xml templates Owners: ralph Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FD3NXVY2JVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916327] Review Request: perl-Class-DBI - Class::DBI - Simple Database Abstraction
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916327 Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-02-27 16:33:11 --- Comment #5 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 166184 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rvI76WaBJoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914793] Review Request: python-kajiki - Really fast well-formed xml templates
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914793 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AAiSCrK8lsa=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 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- So should be ok now -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9M8hWCctn3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 896101] Review Request: inital-setup - The replacement for firstboot utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896101 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags|needinfo?(m...@zarb.org)| Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Ok, so I guess this should be ok. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=z9VyxXp18Ua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828849] Review Request: drupal6-faq - FAQ Module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828849 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|whe...@redhat.com |shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(whe...@redhat.com | |) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EMZ6N82crAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828849] Review Request: drupal6-faq - FAQ Module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828849 --- Comment #8 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 703708 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=703708action=edit drupal6-faq-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 -b 828849 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vmijhGGlola=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828849] Review Request: drupal6-faq - FAQ Module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828849 --- Comment #9 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 703709 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=703709action=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=T6qMNmJUr7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
