[Bug 915337] Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915337
--- Comment #4 from Palle Ravn ravn...@gmail.com ---
Package updated
Spec URL: http://nmon.zom.dk/nmon.spec
SRPM URL: http://nmon.zom.dk/nmon-14g-2.fc18.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5069343
rpmlint: 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(In reply to comment #3)
-O2 and -Wall are already set in optflags and can therefore be removed. To
do the PPC guys a favor, you could include a conditional clause to add -D
POWER, if built on PPC.
-O2 and -Wall removed. I have added the architecture conditional %ifarch for
ppc and ppc64. I am using the %{power64} macro, but not sure if that is more
correct than using ppc64?
I have tested the build with ppc-koji and the -D POWER parameter is invoked
for both ppc and ppc64, see
http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=962445.
Make it ...%{name}.1* to allow for changes possible changes in compression.
Done.
I think you should use the name macro on the gcc and install invocation.
That seems reasonable, done.
The timestamp of Source1 should be preserved.
I didn't understand this at first, as the downloaded file had preserved the
timestamp from the server. I assume that the timestamp should not change duo to
the linebreak fix using sed? That is now corrected with touch, so Source1 is
now dated correctly in the /usr/share/doc/... folder.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JLcpqrcBbpa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851820] Review Request: mingw-eigen3 - MinGW lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851820
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch ---
Since you've done everything, I suggest we reverse roles.
Adding the pkgconfig dependency might be a good idea, but up to you.
scratch build is here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5069386
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
$ rpmlint mingw-eigen3.spec mingw-eigen3-3.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
mingw32-eigen3-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw64-eigen3-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw-eigen3.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2
mingw-eigen3.src: W: invalid-license MPL2
mingw-eigen3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2
mingw32-eigen3.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2
mingw32-eigen3.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/eigen3/Eigen/src/SparseCore/SparseAssign.h
mingw64-eigen3.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2
mingw64-eigen3.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/eigen3/Eigen/src/SparseCore/SparseAssign.h
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
[!] MPL2 should be replaced by MPLv2.0 (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses)
[!] SparseAssign.h should IMO be removed, it does not seem to serve any
purpose, has never been non-zero in upstream hg repository, and has since been
removed
The invalid-url warning can be ignored (native eigen3) does the same thing. You
might however update the version number in the # Source file comment.
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem, mingw64-filesystem is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw specific ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[!] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. See above, the correct tag would be MPLv2.0
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
$ md5sum eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2 3.1.2.tar.bz2
e9c081360dde5e7dcb8eba3c8430fde2 eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2
e9c081360dde5e7dcb8eba3c8430fde2 3.1.2.tar.bz2
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported 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.
[+] 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.
[/] 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 which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: 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.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[/] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[Bug 851820] Review Request: mingw-eigen3 - MinGW lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851820 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xNeyzrD62ma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851820] Review Request: mingw-eigen3 - MinGW lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851820 Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=X47GKEsN4ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851820] Review Request: mingw-eigen3 - MinGW lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851820 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch --- SparseAssign.h is included in Eigen/SparseCore, so it needs to be removed there as well -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=duaP8xuruia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-03-02 04:12:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mUoz9O1KUva=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 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- lib/utils/wildcard.js - under Apache 2.0 Added ASL 2.0 to License tag. nodejs-vows.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) behaviour - behavior Argh. I just grepped to find more occurrences. Will fix in nodejs-expect and nodejs-jasmine-node review requests. nodejs-vows.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vows I actually don't think anyone will really expect vows to be at /usr/bin/vows so I've removed the symlink. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-vows.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-vows-0.7.0-2.fc18.src.rpm 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 Not really sure what to do about these. utils.js looks like yet another slightly modified deepEqual :( Any suggestions? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qWStoq9YjHa=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 #21 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- (In reply to comment #20) No need to %post and %postun in the devel subpackage; ldconfig should be run only in %post* of the actual library package. Quote: If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries I suppose that, in this case, it is useless since every sub-package depends by main one, so if I remove one of them, all will be removed and %post* will run at one time. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS-4.10.0-8.fc18.src.rpm Will you use this package for your 'coin-or-Ipopt' package ? Is it still necessary keep open my review request 908089 ? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EtTbKpTiwXa=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 #22 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. Each (sub-)package that stores shared libs in run-time linker's (!) search path should have a %post/%postun section that calls ldconfig. You can play with ldconfig -v to see what it does after adding/removing shared libs. The -devel package contains no real libs but just softlinks. ldconfig doesn't care about those links. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CwgwaLgyFma=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 #23 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- since every sub-package depends by main one, so if I remove one of them, all will be removed and %post* will run at one time. It doesn't work like that. If you remove a subpackage that depends on the base package, the base package stays installed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FAiT4cDmZ6a=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 #24 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- Thank you Michael for your clarification. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jSHOym0jVra=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
--- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Thanks again Tom for all of the thorough reviews you're doing, picking up
things that I really should have picked up myself!
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
lib/browser/diff.js - looks like it may have been copied
It was indeed copied from nodejs-diff. I've symlinked the real diff.js into
lib/browser/diff.js.
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
The png files in images are used by _mocha.js
Fixed.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
The .html and .jade files in lib should be in %{_datadir}
I think these templates are used in the same way as images/ directory so I'm
hesitating to move them. Which guidelines may I ask?
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
lib/browser/diff.js - what does the missing license.txt say?
No longer a problem as I've removed the bundled diff.js.
[!]: 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?
I've added a man page and sent a pull request upstream. (I'll also send a pull
request for the expresso man page too.) I've removed /usr/bin/_mocha and refer
to only /usr/bin/mocha in the man page.
Also the zero-length files appear to be stubs and should probably be left
there.
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.1-3.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=uen9aZw6ZDa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911180] Review Request: nodejs-expect-js - Behaviour-driven development (BDD) style assertions for Node.js and the browser
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180 --- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Amend typo in the summary. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-expect.js.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-expect-js-0.2.0-2.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=7PVYWk5kHba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912104] Review Request: nodejs-jasmine-node - DOM-less JavaScript behaviour-driven development (BDD) testing framework for Node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912104 --- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Amend typo in the summary. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/nodejs-jasmine-node.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/nodejs-jasmine-node-1.2.3-2.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=TiY1ChvS7Za=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 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- I wrote: Which guidelines may I ask? Ah ok, you must be talking about this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js#Installing_Modules -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d8DljrvMRoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911188] Review Request: nodejs-should - A test framework agnostic BDD-style assertions for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911188 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- I would argue that since should also provides access to this functionality in the form of a library, this a clear fork and okay for Fedora. It's not really bundling as such, as it's really a forked library. So I don't think opening a ticket in FPC's trac necessary. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions Are the changes useful to consumers other than the bundling application? If so why aren't we proposing that the library be released as a fork of the upstream library? is the package we're working on that bundles willing to make their fork a library that others can link against? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tHNf0IBtqBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910142] Review Request: nodejs-send - Better streaming static file server with Range and conditional-GET support
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910142 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HC1pSJ9vspa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910142] Review Request: nodejs-send - Better streaming static file server with Range and conditional-GET support
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910142 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-send-0.1.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-send-0.1.0-3.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=OKnwFyovtRa=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 --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- That's the one, yes. Sorry I wasn't clearer... BTW if you fancy returning the favour I've got some node related review requests of my own open ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WfG4su8Ksea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914924] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g 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=gGspQmxVEya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914925] Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914925 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g 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=q9IWiruA1Sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915488] Review Request: nodejs-sqlite3 - Asynchronous, non-blocking SQLite3 bindings for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915488 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g 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=97nlOPEaXqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915484] Review Request: nodejs-zipfile - C++ library for handling zipfiles in node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915484 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g 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=gaJASClr9Ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915095] Review Request: nodejs-mapnik-reference - Reference for Mapnik Styling Options
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915095 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g 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=4suIsALbfoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914937] Review Request: nodejs-sphericalmercator - Transformations between Spherical Mercator and Lat/Lon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914937 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g 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=usuqvSKBl4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914924] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
lib/sha1.js is BSD licensed, but also it's copied from jshash:
http://pajhome.org.uk/crypt/md5/scripts.html
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Needs something like this so that require('vows') works (but tests pass
otherwise):
%check
cp -pr %{nodejs_sitelib} .
[!]: nodejs-oauth.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apis - pis,
apish, apes
apis should probably be APIs.
= 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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 7 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 described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (oauth-0.9.8.tgz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary
[Bug 914925] Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914925
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
0.1.16 released a couple days ago:
https://github.com/jaredhanson/passport/tags
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Needs:
BuildRequires: npm(pkginfo)
And the modules need to be made available when running the tests:
%check
cp -pr %{nodejs_sitelib} .
But all tests pass otherwise.
= 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.
[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.
[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.
[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 20480 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 described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (passport-0.1.15.tgz) Source1 (passport-
tests-v0.1.15.tar.bz2) Source10 (passport-dl-tests.sh)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages
[Bug 914924] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924 --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Can you explain the logic behind the copying thing? I know you were doing that but my tests seemed to show that it wasn't necessary because node would find them anyway on account of /usr/lib/node_modules being on the default search path? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nVRkDQ3urwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914924] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924 --- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- When I build the packages in mock with check enabled they always seem to fail without a workaround (eg, copying nodejs_sitelib). Does it work for you in mock? I can't think what might be different between our setups. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KqL08ZaOeva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915331] Review Request: rubygem-rubeyond - A development framework for Ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915331 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eLNmW66CqCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915331] Review Request: rubygem-rubeyond - A development framework for Ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915331 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-rubeyond-0.1-1.1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rubeyond-0.1-1.1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NopFVap5Dpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915488] Review Request: nodejs-sqlite3 - Asynchronous, non-blocking SQLite3 bindings for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915488
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
Well, rpmlint is complaining about build/node_sqlite3.node being 0775
(presumably instead of 0755) but I don't think this is an issue. Could do
install -m0755 instead of cp, but that's up to you.
Also I think I'd change the description as we don't really need to mention the
versions of node supported since we only ship one version (and 0.10 isn't
included in the upstream description anyway).
= 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
[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.
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mockbuild/review/review-nodejs-
sqlite3/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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package
[Bug 915331] Review Request: rubygem-rubeyond - A development framework for Ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915331 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-rubeyond-0.1-1.1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rubeyond-0.1-1.1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=etGicF78xka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915488] Review Request: nodejs-sqlite3 - Asynchronous, non-blocking SQLite3 bindings for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915488 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Permissions fixed and description improved: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-sqlite3.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-sqlite3-2.1.5-2.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=zO69TMf9Lta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d7lpjOHCGUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828993] Review Request: l3afpad - Simple text editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828993 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/l3afpad-0.8.18.1.10-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pcnDLWIBcAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915488] Review Request: nodejs-sqlite3 - Asynchronous, non-blocking SQLite3 bindings for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915488 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Great. 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=BdXqS5k3Qpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914925] Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914925 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Updated version, added BR and linked in node_modules: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-passport.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.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=bhVnwPRvdXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914924] Review Request: nodejs-oauth - Library for interacting with OAuth 1.0, 1.0A, 2 and Echo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914924 --- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- You seem to be right.. I have no idea how it is working for me outside of mock then ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FzayDZyPe2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915488] Review Request: nodejs-sqlite3 - Asynchronous, non-blocking SQLite3 bindings for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915488 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-sqlite3 Short Description: Asynchronous, non-blocking SQLite3 bindings for Node.js Owners: tomh Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MjrzQbwUQCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914925] Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914925 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- The new changelog entry has a typo: - BuildRequre pkginfo for tests But otherwise, 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=YC3svRDnGOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914925] Review Request: nodejs-passport - Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914925 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-passport Short Description: Simple, unobtrusive authentication for Node.js Owners: tomh Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PedxEpCrt1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915484] Review Request: nodejs-zipfile - C++ library for handling zipfiles in node
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915484
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
0775 instead of 0755. Again, up to you really.
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Package needs BuildRequires: zlib-devel
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
%check requires BuildRequires: npm(mkdirp).
mkdirp needs to be made available, and also require('zipfile') doesn't work.
There might be a better way to perform this workaround though:
%check
find test/ -type f -iname '*.js' -exec sed -i \
-e s|require('zipfile')|require('../')|g '{}' \;
cp -pr %{nodejs_sitelib} .
Tests otherwise pass.
= 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
[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.
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
[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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: 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 described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license
[Bug 915095] Review Request: nodejs-mapnik-reference - Reference for Mapnik Styling Options
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915095
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
In %check, %{__python2} should be %{__python}.
Also the tests are looking for /usr/share/nodejs-mapnik-reference/ so we need
to use a non-patched directory for the tests:
cp -pr ./ ../package-copy
%patch0 -p0 -b .paths
%check
pushd ../package-copy
%{__python} test/test.py
%{__nodejs} test/lint.js
popd
I also think there are test failures, but it's not clear to me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zbeCRpMnhLa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915095] Review Request: nodejs-mapnik-reference - Reference for Mapnik Styling Options
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915095 --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- In the description, parse-able should maybe be parseable (Firefox thinks parseable is wrong, but Wiktionary has parseable/parsable.. not sure how authoritative wiktionary is though...). I'd also probably change the first dash to a comma: Provides a parse-able spec of what Mapnik can do, what main structures it supports... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=16JgbUkzAna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914937] Review Request: nodejs-sphericalmercator - Transformations between Spherical Mercator and Lat/Lon
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914937
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
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.
[-]: %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.
[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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (sphericalmercator-1.0.2.tgz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
[Bug 840253] Review Request: fourterm - Lightweight split-screen terminal emulator with vim key mappings
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840253 Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-03-02 11:26:36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nz0NdRgWZLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914937] Review Request: nodejs-sphericalmercator - Transformations between Spherical Mercator and Lat/Lon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914937 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Seems fine. 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=KEXElxft05a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915484] Review Request: nodejs-zipfile - C++ library for handling zipfiles in node
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915484
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Easy way to make the require('zipfile') work is to set NODE_LIB which is what
the Makefile does. Fixed, along with everything else:
Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-zipfile.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-zipfile-0.3.4-2.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Y7A4Hh7CrSa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914937] Review Request: nodejs-sphericalmercator - Transformations between Spherical Mercator and Lat/Lon
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914937 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-sphericalmercator Short Description: Transformations between Spherical Mercator and Lat/Lon Owners: tomh Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FmMMi3e8UCa=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 Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||894604 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XiZBPu5ae6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894604] Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||913152 --- Comment #4 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- The package now actually runs, and pass make check, but requires the MUMPS package under review. Update: - Remove ThirdParty directory but keep BuildTools one. - Make use of the MUMPS solver (#913152). - Split html documentation in a doc package. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Ipopt.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-coin-or-Ipopt-3.10.3-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=77nU95XZQ0a=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 #25 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Antonio, I made my coin-or-Ipopt package work with your MUMPS package, it did require a bit of patching and several experimental builds to get it to work with an external, and parallel, not bundled, sequential MUMPS. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 Well, I believe we should cooperate here, but not sure if it is not cheating if I give you the coin-or-Ipopt package so that I can review it :-) Either way, I think you can at least test your ascend package with your MUMPS package and my coin-or-Ipopt for 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=lvfHKtXJuba=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 #26 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- (In reply to comment #25) Antonio, I made my coin-or-Ipopt package work with your MUMPS package, it did require a bit of patching and several experimental builds to get it to work with an external, and parallel, not bundled, sequential MUMPS. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 Good! I close my Bug908089 and we can focus ourselves on coin-or-Ipopt. Well, I believe we should cooperate here, but not sure if it is not cheating if I give you the coin-or-Ipopt package so that I can review it :-) Waiting for someone else opinion. :) Either way, I think you can at least test your ascend package with your MUMPS package and my coin-or-Ipopt for now. Okay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ACRQK3k8SHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908089] Review Request: ipopt - Large-scale optimisation solver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908089 Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-03-02 12:18:29 --- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 894604 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O8wZGu8llea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894604] Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- *** Bug 908089 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WJUdn9536Na=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 Bug 913152 depends on bug 908089, which changed state. Bug 908089 Summary: Review Request: ipopt - Large-scale optimisation solver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908089 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pIEFA2mjiba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 Bug 908088 depends on bug 908089, which changed state. Bug 908089 Summary: Review Request: ipopt - Large-scale optimisation solver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908089 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zhzv5iO9QHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908089] Review Request: ipopt - Large-scale optimisation solver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908089 --- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- (In reply to comment #9) Hello everyone, Thomas Moulard here. I am not currently a Fedora user so I prefer not to co-maintain the package. Feel free to take over the MUMPS packaging attempt. Thank you Thomas. MUMPS package is now under revision in Bug913152. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9Zy7dhouGIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915095] Review Request: nodejs-mapnik-reference - Reference for Mapnik Styling Options
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915095 --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Fixed python macro, and removed hyphen from parseable. Fowler's seems clear the hyphen is not needed and is more concerned with whether the e should be removed. I've fixed the tests as you suggest, though it's not very nice, but I don't think there's anything better. Ideally RPM would run tests against the build root after %install I guess but that would be hard. The failures you're seeing aren't exactly failures, but then lint.js isn't exactly a test suite - it's more of a coverage test that generates a list of any attributes that don't have documentation yet. Possibly we shouldn't run it - it will never fail (in the exit non-zero sense) anyway. New spec and SRPM: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-mapnik-reference.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=n1QH035hoRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771254] Review Request: libva-vdpau-driver - HW video decode support for VDPAU platforms
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771254 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- For 0.7.4-3: * Directory ownership - It seems that it is better that this rpm has Requires: mesa-dri-filesystem for the ownership of %_libdir/dri . Please fix the above issue before importing this into git. - This package (libva-vdpau-driver) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=B8yAgMK104a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906843] Review Request: rubygem-qpid_proton - Ruby language bindings for the Qpid Proton messaging framework
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906843
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org ---
For 0.4-1
* Version specific requires for ruby(release)
- It seems that ruby(release) (Build)Requires should
not have version specific dependency
(see Vít's comments:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2013-February/001259.html
)
* Installing native extension
- The following line
---
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri}/
mv %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/lib/cproton.so \
%{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri}/lib
---
makes cproton.so _renamed_ to lib (i.e. the
file lib is created with these lines).
* gem install
- For gem install, please use %gem_install macro
(note that on F-19, %gem_install used different
option for documentation generation - on F-18/17,
%gem_install also uses --rdoc option)
Currently Installing native extension item is really blocker.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tAw1xRYkwPa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906453] Review Request: bsfilter - Bayesian spam filter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906453 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Now I am trying to fix build for ruby-mecab with ruby 2.0.0 -- 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=LKivvTA5yha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906843] Review Request: rubygem-qpid_proton - Ruby language bindings for the Qpid Proton messaging framework
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906843
--- Comment #5 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
For 0.4-1
* Version specific requires for ruby(release)
- It seems that ruby(release) (Build)Requires should
not have version specific dependency
(see Vít's comments:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2013-February/001259.html
)
Fixed.
* Installing native extension
- The following line
---
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri}/
mv %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/lib/cproton.so \
%{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri}/lib
---
makes cproton.so _renamed_ to lib (i.e. the
file lib is created with these lines).
Fixed. The specfile now ensures the directory exists, and then moves the shared
library appropriately.
* gem install
- For gem install, please use %gem_install macro
(note that on F-19, %gem_install used different
option for documentation generation - on F-18/17,
%gem_install also uses --rdoc option)
Currently Installing native extension item is really blocker.
Done.
Updated SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-qpid_proton.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rubygem-qpid_proton-0.4-1.1.fc18.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5070299
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1bIO1cjojQa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-03-02 14:53:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9mtiHqJ1Tqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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=rYkTVpaewAa=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1pFyY0dYCna=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 #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gitstats-0-0.4.20130224git0843039.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IPPaylqlr9a=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 #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-Horde-Injector-2.0.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QWhIc2TU89a=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zpQNauhxpwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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=hTDrZMdSXca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912596] Review Request: maven-shared-resources - A collection of templates that are specific to the Maven project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912596 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-03-02 15:10:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3YCnETPNLsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912596] Review Request: maven-shared-resources - A collection of templates that are specific to the Maven project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912596 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- maven-shared-resources-1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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=Xjx8O70zj4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876399] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default - Set of useful typemaps
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876399 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |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=IjebGZnXSka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876399] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default - Set of useful typemaps
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876399 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default-1.01-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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=MyzpMMnwzDa=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0tmq0UeZHKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902503] Review Request: rubygem-httpclient - HTTP Client interface for ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902503 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-httpclient-2.3.2-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=T553ZpKQfra=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gGf92sYKIaa=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 #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-Horde-Tree-2.0.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yZ7FBPKPbga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876405] Review Request: perl-Module-Build-WithXSpp - XS++ enhanced flavor of Module::Build
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876405 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |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=TUqgR92GZaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876405] Review Request: perl-Module-Build-WithXSpp - XS++ enhanced flavor of Module::Build
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876405 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Module-Build-WithXSpp-0.12-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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=eLznTR0hCDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915484] Review Request: nodejs-zipfile - C++ library for handling zipfiles in node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915484 --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Heh, I knew I was missing something obvious ;) Package approved! (And sorry for the slight delay.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u8SzaNrnpVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915095] Review Request: nodejs-mapnik-reference - Reference for Mapnik Styling Options
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915095
--- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
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
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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 described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (mapnik-reference-5.0.4.tgz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18.src.rpm
[Bug 915095] Review Request: nodejs-mapnik-reference - Reference for Mapnik Styling Options
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915095 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- I've fixed the tests as you suggest, though it's not very nice Rather horrible indeed, but I couldn't think of anything better either. The failures you're seeing aren't exactly failures, but then lint.js isn't exactly a test suite - it's more of a coverage test that generates a list of any attributes that don't have documentation yet. Possibly we shouldn't run it - it will never fail (in the exit non-zero sense) anyway. Yeh I think coverage testing is not really the aim of %check so perhaps don't run the lint.js test. Aside from this, everything else looks good so 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=cqbDsjQMXZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915484] Review Request: nodejs-zipfile - C++ library for handling zipfiles in node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915484 --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Thanks for that (and all the reviews) but you didn't actually set the flag ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3EjPMfN03Sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915095] Review Request: nodejs-mapnik-reference - Reference for Mapnik Styling Options
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915095 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-mapnik-reference Short Description: Reference for Mapnik Styling Options Owners: tomh Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=c8bKdGaJDTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915484] Review Request: nodejs-zipfile - C++ library for handling zipfiles in node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915484 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Oops! Done :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mdjsviFLl3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915484] Review Request: nodejs-zipfile - C++ library for handling zipfiles in node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915484 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-zipfile Short Description: C++ library for handling zipfiles in Node.js Owners: tomh Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5flxFQ0rzka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894604] Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||908088 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t406SjifOQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||894604 --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- ipopt dependency changed to coin-or-Ipopt. .c/.h files rearranged to be all included in devel package. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-3.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=rRuSweYQFua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851820] Review Request: mingw-eigen3 - MinGW lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851820 --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/mingw-eigen3.spec SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/mingw-eigen3-3.1.2-2.fc19.src.rpm * Sun Mar 03 2013 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com - 3.1.2-2 - Fix license As for the SparseAssign.h, since it does no harm, I'd rather keep as close to the upstream release as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OoaFWu7tEUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917312] New: Review Request: nodejs-srs - Spatial reference library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917312 Bug ID: 917312 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-srs - Spatial reference library for Node.js Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: t...@compton.nu Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-srs.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-srs-0.2.20-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: Bindings to libosr for handling spatial references in Node.js. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lRQmjND8Nga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915144] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144 --- Comment #3 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru --- Spec URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol.spec SRPM URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol-2.7.5-2.fc18.src.rpm An error in script: missed -e option to the xterm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jdFxD6gspha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851820] Review Request: mingw-eigen3 - MinGW lightweight C++ template library for vector and matrix math
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851820 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch --- The empty SparseAssign.h is in the native package as well, so I agree to keep it as is. However, rpmlint still complains about the license: $ rpmlint mingw-eigen3-3.1.2-2.fc19.src.rpm mingw-eigen3.src: W: invalid-license MPLv2 According to the licensing wiki page, there's no such thing as MPLv2, you really need to use MPLv2.0. When that is fixed, I'll approve... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A24dSIHDCya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
