[Bug 911042] Review Request: nodejs-node-uuid - Simple and fast generation of RFC4122 (v1 and v4) UUIDs for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911042 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-04-19 00:59:25 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=x0TycYJKWma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953478] Review Request: eina - Core development libraries for Enlightenment
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953478 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #6 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- That package is not updated to 1.7.6 and owned by spot. I would assume libeina is the proper name for it since spot packaged it though. Looping him in for his thoughts but yeah I see what you are saying. Will leave this open until spot comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BwVqV8aWjPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953379] Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
--- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= Issues =
[!]: License is listed as BSD, but no copy of the license is included.
The BSD license states:
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
In order to comply with this clause of the license, a copy of the license
text MUST be included in %doc. You can either work with upstream to
include
one, or include one yourself.
For more information on handling this situation, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[!]: The $PREFIX is hardcoded.
You shouldn't need this at all, as it's handled by the %configure macro.
If you do need it, please use PREFIX=%{_prefix} instead.
[!]: The upstream tarball includes an initscript, but this package does not
ship
a systemd service.
Is the functionality provided by the initscript necessary or desired?
[!]: The provided spec file and the spec in the SRPM differ.
Please make sure they are identical next time.
= Things to Consider
[ ]: The %files section contains an unnecessary %defattr line.
This package does not contain the remaning necessary boilerplate to be
supported on RHEL 5, and this line is no longer necessary in modern
Fedora.
Please consider removing it.
[ ]: The summary and description could use some more work.
Please consider briefly explaining what TIPC is.
= 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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/953379-tipcutils/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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]: 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
[Bug 953379] Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(l...@buffalo.edu) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9ehfh9mMkwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911229] Review Request: nodejs-vows - Asynchronous behaviour-driven development (BDD) and continuous integration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911229 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-04-19 01:32:11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=r1Ufe5IDEya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947492] Review Request: luakit - Extremely fast, lightweight and flexible vi-like web browser
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947492
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(l...@buffalo.edu)
--- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues
[!]: `make install` installs a .desktop file but desktop-file-validate is not
run in %check.
Please run desktop-file-validate in %check. For more information, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
[!]: The License tag is strictly GPLv3 even though it appears it should be
GPLv3+.
Are you sure later versions of the GPL may not be used?
[!]: The $PREFIX is hardcoded.
Please use %{_prefix} instead.
[!]: The distribution-wide compiler flags are not used.
Please make sure %{optflags} are added to the compiler flags used by this
package.
[!]: This package contains tests, but they are not run in %check.
Please run the tests in %check, or justify why they cannot be run in a
comment (e.g. if they require network/Internet).
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/947492-luakit/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/luakit
[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
