[Bug 759139] Review Request: Nini - A .NET framework for reading INI files.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759139 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(i...@stingr.net) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LGOHvbLJgKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759139] Review Request: Nini - A .NET framework for reading INI files.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759139 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jncZXjbEEua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907261] Review Request: poly2tri - A 2D constrained Delaunay triangulation library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907261 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Please state where the Makefile is from. The build doesn't use Fedora's flags. Try to preserve the timestamp of the AUTHORS file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hpG0dbE7W1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894176] Review Request: wbox - HTTP testing tool and configuration-less HTTP server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894176 Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com --- Thanks for your work on wbox, 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=ZaeFVlEccEa=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 #4 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru --- Spec URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol.spec SRPM URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol-2.7.5-3.fc18.src.rpm Move some examples and docs to -doc subpackage. Warning. Source codes are not available on official site at the moment with 403 error. I wrote a letter to the webmaster, waiting for the reply. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=swSbkTFG7La=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821325] Review Request: python-plumbum - Shell combinators library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821325 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-plumbum New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: lorenzodalrio -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nxrnd1LAgPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889011] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor - A pure Ruby implementation of AsciiDoc
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889011 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #8) We introduced a man page in 0.1.0, so I had to add an additional copy command to get it to work. If you have a cleaner way to do it, just let me know. Otherwise, it gets the job done. I don't know any other better way. On the other hand, it'd be nice RFE for RubyGems upstream * Add Requires: ruby(abi) - I asked you to remove Requires: ruby. Unfortunately, you removed ruby(abi) as well. However, this must stay. This is the only issue I see with this package currently, so I conditionally APPROVE the package. However, please note that there are approved new Ruby packaging guidelines for F19. According to them, you should replace the ruby(abi) with ruby(release) and you should replace a gem install command by %gem_install macro. It would be cool if you can update the package accordingly and build already in f19-ruby targed, where the rebuild for Ruby 2.0.0 is ongoing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BDtKyWaddNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889011] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor - A pure Ruby implementation of AsciiDoc
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889011 --- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- BTW do you still need to be sponsored? What is your FAS account 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=ZNCS24H4IVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914005] Package Rename Review Request: cobertura-maven-plugin - Features of Cobertura within Maven
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914005
Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cobertura-
maven-plugin-javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/akurtakov/tmp/914005-cobertura-
maven-plugin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bZCtRRmBRea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917052] Review Request: perl-PPI-XS - XS acceleration for PPI
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917052 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A3Hap11htGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902017] Review Request: openshift-java-client - OpenShift Java Client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902017 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||917656 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2MdfNUA1xaa=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 #6 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- (In reply to comment #4) 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 SRPMS url is wrong. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Feu8OF870Va=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821325] Review Request: python-plumbum - Shell combinators library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821325 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XQmXwOv9vYa=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 #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CdOq4hVXqXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858841] Review Request: owncloud - Private file sync and share server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858841 --- Comment #52 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Un-setting 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=6mht2hUkA2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892315] Review Request: rubygem-webrobots - Ruby library to help write robots.txt compliant web robots
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892315 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tMNfQDsS8Za=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 #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qbme3WKpMWa=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 #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WIO1QMuj36a=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 #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gQ2AA7e0yga=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 #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JIao1DprhUa=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 #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t1DsLn7wqja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916766] Review Request: source-highlight-qt - Library for performing syntax highlighting in Qt documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916766 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TAMOu6bnwKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889 --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- The latest version of mudule is 3.04 http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/Text-Soundex-3.04/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=38yrLf4Mbna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Sub-packaged in perl-5.16.2-250. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8HHcM889OVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915087] Review Request: nodejs-chrono - Format dates in JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915087 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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=vuUlH0L6XLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Updated package is located on: Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Text-Soundex/perl-Text-Soundex.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Text-Soundex/perl-Text-Soundex-3.04-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gtbQByjxwka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916687] Review Request: glassfish-el - J2EE Expression Language Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916687 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- It looks good now. 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=SrpAQEdLhfa=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wpupRNH1xUa=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BsfTcKsQfCa=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TQkCx9yQUSa=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 #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-3075/nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.fc18,nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18,nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18,nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.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=tvAnN5fWzNa=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 #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-3075/nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.fc18,nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18,nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18,nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.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=W62TJZcA58a=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 #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-3075/nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.fc18,nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18,nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18,nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.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=o2oAzi7Qo0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916432] Review Request: python-geojson - Encoder/decoder for simple GIS features
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916432 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Hi, I removed the example and patched out the setuptools requirement. I couldn't find anywhere it was actually used at runtime (sometimes it is required for entry-points iteration at runtime). I couldn't get the tests to pass. It has to do with their use of doctests' ELLIPSIS.. with which I'm unfamiliar. I gave it a good try, though. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-geojson.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-geojson-1.0.1-2.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=EL4ejsylOTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916687] Review Request: glassfish-el - J2EE Expression Language Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916687 --- Comment #9 from David Xie david.script...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: glassfish-el Short Description: J2EE Expression Language Implementation Owners: davidx Branches: f18 InitialCC: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zWiH1qxnqVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: 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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large data in
[Bug 917052] Review Request: perl-PPI-XS - XS acceleration for PPI
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917052 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- No issues found, approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kLxm0v07oCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916687] Review Request: glassfish-el - J2EE Expression Language Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916687 --- Comment #10 from David Xie david.script...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: glassfish-el Short Description: J2EE Expression Language Implementation Owners: davidx Branches: f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2T33gKoXTGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916687] Review Request: glassfish-el - J2EE Expression Language Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916687 David Xie david.script...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=frmDazuwGXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916687] Review Request: glassfish-el - J2EE Expression Language Implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916687 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dBzvNLs4jZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855331] Review Request: polyglot-maven - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/polyglot-maven/4/polyglot-maven.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/polyglot-maven/4/polyglot-maven-0.8-0.8-0.4.20120923.fc18.src.rpm - disable gmaven build support for now (depend on rhbz#914056) - disable jruby module for now (depend on rhbz#859711) Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5076299 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8NZSLM9yJJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914005] Package Rename Review Request: cobertura-maven-plugin - Features of Cobertura within Maven
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914005 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cobertura-maven-plugin Short Description: Features of Cobertura within Maven Owners: msrb mizdebsk tradej sochotni Branches: InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oKwWPwUhRZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907677] Review Request: gtatool - Commandline tool to manipulate GTAs
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907677
--- Comment #6 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com ---
Hi Volker! sorry for the late response:
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
--- The unversioned .so files are plugins
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.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
src/conv-ply Uses code from Greg Turk 1994. We already have a ply aware
library in fedora which is called rply (I maintain it because it is a dep for
VXL too). Do you think there is a possibility to use that?
conv-pvm uses files from vvv
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
gui, %package matlab, %package netcdf, %package hdr, %package
imagemagick, %package pcd, %package sndfile, %package dcmtk, %package
gdal
The spec file is correct.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 3 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mario/907677-gtatool/licensecheck.txt
In src/conv-ply/ ply.h and plyfile.cpp use the code from Greg Turk 1994.
See bundled libraries section above
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]:
[Bug 907677] Review Request: gtatool - Commandline tool to manipulate GTAs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907677 --- Comment #7 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com --- Hi Volker, Resuming, I have the following concerns: [!] You bundle some files from ply and vvv. At least for ply we could use rply which is already in Fedora. I can help with a patch if you choose to use rply (I'd take the chance to show some love to the rply package, too), but have no idea as for vvv. [!] Do you need the gcc-c++ BR? [x] Okay for the unversioned libraries For everything else, it seems to me an excellent package and a much needed one for fedora medical! Mario -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OLA61KxUdGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914005] Package Rename Review Request: cobertura-maven-plugin - Features of Cobertura within Maven
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914005 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KN4nzaqjDAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Text-Soundex Short Description: Implementation of the soundex algorithm Owners: ppisar jlesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1KPSXDgS31a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917052] Review Request: perl-PPI-XS - XS acceleration for PPI
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917052 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-PPI-XS Short Description: XS acceleration for PPI Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KprCWDKRR2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Text-Soundex Short Description: Implementation of the soundex algorithm Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig --- Typo in new owner name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=g5V9yT2kgxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882617] Review Request: jsoncpp - An implementation of a JSON reader and writer in C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882617 --- Comment #15 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com --- Thanks Sebastien, I'm curious if Michael sees any additional problems or if the package can be approved (and used to build orthanc :) ) Best, Mario -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=D7BDdxNn35a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917740] New: Review Request: MySQL - Renaming package mysql to MySQL
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917740 Bug ID: 917740 Summary: Review Request: MySQL - Renaming package mysql to MySQL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: hho...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/mysql-rename/MySQL.spec SRPM URL: http://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/mysql-rename/MySQL-5.5.30-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: This is a re-review request for a package rename as described at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process -- we want to rename package mysql to MySQL and make mysql only a virtual provider in F19+. MySQL will correspond with RPM packages provided by Oracle. As a result of this renaming there will be less conflicts with another mysql implementation -- MariaDB -- in Fedora repository. MySQL is a multi-user, multi-threaded SQL database server. MySQL is a client/server implementation consisting of a server daemon (mysqld) and many different client programs and libraries. The base package contains the standard MySQL client programs and generic MySQL files. Fedora Account System Username: hhorak -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d26zfiVzETa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905889] Review Request: perl-Text-Soundex - Implementation of the soundex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905889 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UK58d5zq4Aa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917052] Review Request: perl-PPI-XS - XS acceleration for PPI
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917052 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UPuMVvCPRGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912834] Review Request: php-dropbox-php-Dropbox - Library for integrating dropbox with PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912834 --- Comment #6 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- I was just wondering: dropbox-php includes some tests (don't by themselves) but doesn't install them. Shall I copy them to the testdir or maybe adjust package.xml? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IpthwgWhG6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917419] Review Request: nodejs-xml2js - Simple XML to JavaScript object converter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917419 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=B3FhSD3mtwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917417] Review Request: nodejs-zap - A tiny test runner
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917417 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=EeZaPj9o3Ta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917308] Review Request: nodejs-step - A simple control-flow library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917308 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=CHnrwoutPha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917312] Review Request: nodejs-srs - Spatial reference library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917312 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=LJbiUnCj5Oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806117] Review Request: Oplop - Generate account passwords based on account nicknames
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806117 --- Comment #9 from Abdel Gadiel Martínez Lassonde abdel.g.martine...@gmail.com --- I have updated the packages with the suggestions Mario did. Here are the links: http://potty.fedorapeople.org/Oplop/1.6-2/Oplop.spec http://potty.fedorapeople.org/Oplop/1.6-2/Oplop-1.6-2.fc18.src.rpm I'm sorry for the delay. Regards. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=evVFRywGfAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917417] Review Request: nodejs-zap - A tiny test runner
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917417
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: 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.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
The license from upstream repository should be included for now until the next
release.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Is test/fail.test.js just meant to fail? Perhaps just run the other test
(./bin/zap test/par.js) but not sure if that does anything useful either?
Also I'd like to see the description improved. Shouldn't refer to I or me.
= 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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 (zap-0.2.5.tgz)
[x]: SourceX
[Bug 917308] Review Request: nodejs-step - A simple control-flow library for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917308
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 (step-0.0.5.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
[Bug 917308] Review Request: nodejs-step - A simple control-flow library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917308 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Looks 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=p8qrGQeNswa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917308] Review Request: nodejs-step - A simple control-flow library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917308 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-step Short Description: A simple control-flow library 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=5YjYfxMwVaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917312] Review Request: nodejs-srs - Spatial reference library for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917312
--- 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
nodejs-srs-cleaner.sh is 0775 not 0755.
= 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.
[!]: 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:
GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated, MIT/X11 (BSD like),
zlib/libpng, zlib/libpng MIT/X11 (BSD like), ISC, *No copyright*
Public domain. 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mockbuild/review/review-nodejs-srs/licensecheck.txt
All of these are in deps/ folder which is removed in %prep, so ignorable.
[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:
[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 (srs-0.2.20-fedora.tgz)
[x]:
[Bug 917312] Review Request: nodejs-srs - Spatial reference library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917312 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Assuming the permissions are fixed (which is not big issue anyway), 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=2fOppqwy3wa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868266] Review Request: pyglet - A cross-platform windowing and multimedia library for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868266 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- I'll take this review. My initial attempt at using fedora-review is failing for reasons I don't understand. The initial build succeeds, but then it does this: Installing built package(s) Mock command returned error code 1 Cannot run mock --shell rpmbuild -bp: INFO: mock.py version 1.1.29 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: lock buildroot Start: device setup Finish: device setup Start: shell Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.pAn4Ho + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf pyglet-1.2alpha1 + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/pyglet-1.2alpha1-repacked.tar.gz + /usr/bin/tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd pyglet-1.2alpha1 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + find . -name '*.py' + xargs dos2unix xargs: dos2unix: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.pAn4Ho (%prep) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.pAn4Ho (%prep) Finish: shell Finish: lock buildroot ... which makes no sense at all, since the spec file BuildRequires: dos2unix. I'll see if I can figure out what is going on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ow9P5Gp9wFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917419] Review Request: nodejs-xml2js - Simple XML to JavaScript object converter
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917419
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Gosh, why didn't I think of symlinking nodejs_sitelib in %check instead of
copying? :)
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
0.2.6 is available.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
DEBUG: All of 0 tests passed. Yeah!
Needs:
BuildRequires: coffee-script
BuildRequires: npm(sax)
= 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.
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 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.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (xml2js-0.2.4.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 rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
[Bug 917312] Review Request: nodejs-srs - Spatial reference library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917312 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-srs Short Description: Spatial reference library 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=Mqjqy2LOETa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917419] Review Request: nodejs-xml2js - Simple XML to JavaScript object converter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917419 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Well your cp is actually just copying the symlink anyway ;-) Updated to 0.2.6 (now with separate tests...) and BRs fixed: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-xml2js.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-xml2js-0.2.6-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=o6FwnxSV0Ea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868266] Review Request: pyglet - A cross-platform windowing and multimedia library for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868266 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- FWIW, dos2unix isn't necessary anyway. You're already using sed on all of the source files, so you might as well make it do the extra work. I replaced the two lines in %prep starting with find with this: # Get rid of hashbang lines. This is a library, it has no executable scripts. # Also remove Windows newlines find . -name '*.py' | xargs sed -i -e 's|#!/usr/bin/\(env \)\?python||;s/\r//' and now fedora-review likes it. I don't know that there is anything wrong with the original; it is probably a bug in mock. But this lets me move forward with the review (and the dos2unix BR can be removed). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wZdrh7mvbWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917308] Review Request: nodejs-step - A simple control-flow library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917308 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e3srIYvP2Ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917312] Review Request: nodejs-srs - Spatial reference library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917312 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=24l35VrDoma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894176] Review Request: wbox - HTTP testing tool and configuration-less HTTP server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894176 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: wbox Short Description: HTTP testing tool and configuration-less HTTP server Owners: fab Branches: F17 F18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qwtrB9ivVaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906473] Review Request: erlang-ranch - Socket acceptor pool for TCP protocols
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906473 Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||josdek...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|josdek...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com --- there seems to be a tiny difference between your spec file and the spec file in the your srpm: diff erlang-ranch.spec.srpm_version erlang.ranch.spec.dowloaded_from_review_request 18c18 # Error:erlang(lists:keyfind/3 in R12B and earlier --- # Error:erlang(lists:keyfind/3) in R12B and earlier I trust you'll fix the srpm version in the next update. mock runs fine and creates 2 rpm files. The rpmlint results on these rpm files are: $ rpmlint erlang-ranch-0.6.1-1.fc19.src.rpm erlang-ranch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acceptor - accept or, accept-or, accept erlang-ranch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acceptor - accept or, accept-or, accept erlang-ranch.src: W: invalid-url Source0: extend-ranch-0.6.1-0-gd635aec.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint erlang-ranch-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acceptor - accept or, accept-or, accept erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acceptor - accept or, accept-or, accept erlang-ranch.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/erlang-ranch-0.6.1/doc/overview.edoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. The spelling-error and invalid-url warnings are not significant I think. The no-binary error seems more significant. According to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-binary E: foo-package no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. Solution:- Add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file Since erlang beam files should be cross-platform compatible, this seems to be applicable to me. If this is not the case for this package, please explain why. Also the file-not-utf8 warning seems correct to me. A fix is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NC0xaurm8La=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886903] Review Request: xonotic - Multiplayer, deathmatch oriented first person shooter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886903 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-03-04 17:25:33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XfFTkq2huTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886903] Review Request: xonotic - Multiplayer, deathmatch oriented first person shooter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886903 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18, xonotic-0.6.0-7.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=fHLO5QP1fFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886908] Review Request: xonotic-data - Game data for the Xonotic first person shooter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-03-04 17:25:48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KIvlsEB6C8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886903] Review Request: xonotic - Multiplayer, deathmatch oriented first person shooter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886903 Bug 886903 depends on bug 886908, which changed state. Bug 886908 Summary: Review Request: xonotic-data - Game data for the Xonotic first person shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3PbZl6vykoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886908] Review Request: xonotic-data - Game data for the Xonotic first person shooter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886908 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xonotic-data-0.6.0-4.fc18, xonotic-0.6.0-7.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=8Qf4Q17OwWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876408] Review Request: perl-Boost-Geometry-Utils - Boost::Geometry::Utils Perl module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876408 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Boost-Geometry-Utils-0.05-6.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=BbaLWx0FgUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876408] Review Request: perl-Boost-Geometry-Utils - Boost::Geometry::Utils Perl module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876408 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=YeFnYO3GCja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908168] Review Request: openprops - A fork of java.util.Properties from OpenJDK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908168 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-03-04 17:27:56 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dgNw1Oa4fba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908168] Review Request: openprops - A fork of java.util.Properties from OpenJDK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908168 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openprops-0.6-4.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=hDOvyvwIJ3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915087] Review Request: nodejs-chrono - Format dates in JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915087 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.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=RKjLEI7Q5Fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915087] Review Request: nodejs-chrono - Format dates in JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915087 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=Tw05nzI8sSa=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 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=VlADNyr488a=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 #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.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=lRV5t9yhGta=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 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=cXgyy1m62la=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 #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.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=3gmwDraOSua=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 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=OUqU009VeKa=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 #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chrono-1.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-sphericalmercator-1.0.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mapnik-reference-5.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-passport-0.1.16-1.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=F08odZ6Yrda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908168] Review Request: openprops - A fork of java.util.Properties from OpenJDK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908168 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openprops-0.6-4.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=bfNPwsBIfda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887913] Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887913 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=2hzHbOPX55a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887913] Review Request: perl-Math-Clipper - Polygon clipping in 2D
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887913 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Math-Clipper-1.15-1.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=P03gWqCnMYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917417] Review Request: nodejs-zap - A tiny test runner
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917417 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- License file added and description improved: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-zap.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-zap-0.2.5-2.fc18.src.rpm The tests don't seem to be very useful I agree - it tests that a test can fail by having a test which fails -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cL4brEUDr7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917419] Review Request: nodejs-xml2js - Simple XML to JavaScript object converter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917419 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- 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=RxNH8przMwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917417] Review Request: nodejs-zap - A tiny test runner
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917417 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=67GF9P9r39a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882617] Review Request: jsoncpp - An implementation of a JSON reader and writer in C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882617 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Hmmm, with regard to the shared library this is sort of a grey area. We don't have anything in the packaging guidelines that comments on making up versioned SONAMEs. I can only repeat comment 8 and approve this package with a big fat warning only. You will need to take the full risk and the full responsibility for shipping a libjsoncpp.so.0 that may be incompatible with a future upstream release, other distributions, or even updates of jsoncpp within Fedora. The automatic RPM SONAME dependencies won't help you either within the Fedora package collection. You'll be on your own here, and you'll need to be very careful and check the API/ABI of future updates with the help of tools like diff, rpmsodiff and abi-compliance-checker, for example. If the ABI breaks often, it would be better to use a stricter SONAME version, but with the added penalty that you would need to invent a suitable versioning scheme or rebuild dependencies more often than necessary. As a last resort, you could continue building a shared lib, but with a SONAME that would change [almost] always. It's also less than ideal that upstream has not responded to the ticket and/or forum thread which you've opened. In case of doubts, it might also be an idea to consult the Fedora packaging mailing-list for feedback on this. And, of course, this is an opportunity to team up with the Orthanc packagers and have more people check/co-maintain future jsoncpp updates/upgrades. Upstream does not provide a soname, so I use 0.0.0. See comment 6. libjsoncpp.so.0 $ eu-readelf -d /usr/lib64/libjsoncpp.so.0.0.0 |grep SO SONAMELibrary soname: [libjsoncpp.so.0] # Build the doc python doxybuild.py Python is only available indirectly because of Scons. There are two minor packaging issues left, which shouldn't block the package, however: * jsoncpp.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jsoncpp-0.6.0/AUTHORS * jsoncpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/jsoncpp/index.html links a few local files, which are only packaged in the base jsoncpp package %doc dir. E.g. LICENSE, *.txt. Those links give 404 not found, of course. Duplicating those %doc files in the -doc package would be acceptable here, IMO. Making jsoncpp-doc depend on the base package would not be good, because Documentation packages usually should stay independent. Summary:An implementation of a JSON reader and writer in C++ And last but not least, now that I've had another look at the spec, I'm not a fan of leading articles at the beginning of the Summary. When those summaries are displayed by Anaconda and package tools, that looks ugly if many of them start with An, A, The. Nowadays most packages drop leading articles, I think. Also, mentioning that this is a library or API might be better. Mentioning that reading and writing is implemented might be too much, because a future version might also offer checking/validating. It's okay if the description expands on such details. Summary: JSON API for C++ Summary: JSON library implemented in C++ Summary: C++ library for reading and writing JSON Up to you, of course. ;) 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=CRMvoSKLHPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917417] Review Request: nodejs-zap - A tiny test runner
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917417 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-zap Short Description: A tiny test runner 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=WxKvZSGnpba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917419] Review Request: nodejs-xml2js - Simple XML to JavaScript object converter
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917419 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-xml2js Short Description: Simple XML to JavaScript object converter 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=qls4DntFzYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
