[Bug 954354] Review Request: zimlib - Library for reading/writing ZIM files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954354 --- Comment #10 from Micah Roth micah.r...@ucla.edu --- You can try like Tom did here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950172#c2 Please also tell upstream. Done. New URLS: Spec URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/zimlib.spec SRPM URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/zimlib-1.0-5.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=P3xMtf0GUxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841
Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(shawn.iwinski@gma
||il.com)
--- Comment #5 from Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com ---
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
[jsmith@hockey zen]$ rpmlint drupal7-theme-zen.spec
drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
/home/jsmith/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
drupal7-theme-zen.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/drupal7/themes/zen/STARTERKIT/sass-extensions/zen-grids/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Notice that the error is about the incorrect address for the FSF in the license
file -- you should work with upstream to get that fixed.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ BAD ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
I noticed that zen/js/html5.js and zen/js/html5-respond.js are licensed as both
MIT and GPLv2, but the spec file only lists the GPL license
[ O K ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ O K ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[jsmith@hockey zen]$ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz ; curl -s -o
- http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz | md5sum -
05dfedea459f99b8fdeaee06e8714749
/home/jsmith/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zen-7.x-5.1.tar.gz
05dfedea459f99b8fdeaee06e8714749 -
[ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[ O K ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[ O K ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory.
[ O K ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
[ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[ O K ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[ O K ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run
[Bug 911026] Review Request: nodejs-colors - Get colors in your Node.js console
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911026 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZBF72XsrOja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911025] Review Request: nodejs-collections - Data structures with idiomatic JavaScript collection interfaces
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911025 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9vMBPZcjmsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910159] Review Request: nodejs-jscoverage - A JavaScript coverage tool for Node.js and browser development
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910159 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sgOKPAMs6qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911046] Review Request: nodejs-prompt - A beautiful command-line prompt for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911046 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=67Wr9RZG35a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911047] Review Request: nodejs-q - A tool for making and composing asynchronous promises in JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911047 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aSIBg7DtB6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911037] Review Request: nodejs-jsconfig - Asynchronous configuration loader with cli support
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911037 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q3U5C7mBmUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911028] Review Request: nodejs-cycle - A Node.js module implementing JSON encoders/decoders in JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911028 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yBszsiNuyLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911044] Review Request: nodejs-pg - PostgreSQL client for Node.js - pure JavaScript and libpq with the same API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911044 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fTCf7gCTpia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911049] Review Request: nodejs-revalidator - A cross-browser/Node.js validator used by resourceful
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911049 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Okt5UCbPZTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911034] Review Request: nodejs-i - Custom inflections for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911034 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=D7UkdHYdIta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911069] Review Request: nodejs-stack-trace - Node.js module to get v8 stack traces as an array of CallSite objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911069 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UnemVFLl0Ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911038] Review Request: nodejs-mimeparse - A Node.js module with basic functions for handling mime-types
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911038 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8KzwVIore8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911056] Review Request: nodejs-underscore-logger - Cross-browser and Node.js empowered logging
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911056 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cI66GMqx6Fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911040] Review Request: nodejs-muffin - Node.js module with handy helpers for building Cakefiles
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911040 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FnkpxySbRna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911029] Review Request: nodejs-dep-graph - Node.js module for simple dependency graph management in JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911029 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iU6E6zJ61qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911048] Review Request: nodejs-q-io - Interfaces for IO using Q promises in JavaScript on Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911048 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=f5XeaWL7ySa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911041] Review Request: nodejs-ncp - Asynchronous recursive file copy utility for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911041 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yKxumZ2xc1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911023] Review Request: nodejs-ain2 - A Node.js module for syslog logging (and a continuation of ain)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911023 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DHeuL5837Ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917137] Review Request: nodejs-tinycolor - color module for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917137 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8mvSq2tyIVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917138] Review Request: nodejs-supervisor - supervisor program for running nodejs programs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917138 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jpt7Lyhy1Va=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917139] Review Request: nodejs-options - in-code option parser for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917139 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qaS3NL77zDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911050] Review Request: nodejs-snockets - A JavaScript/CoffeeScript concatenation tool for Node.js inspired by Sprockets
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911050 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K9J792Jbpqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911180] Review Request: nodejs-expect-js - Behaviour-driven development (BDD) style assertions for Node.js and the browser
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XNMFWk3I5Na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917136] Review Request: nodejs-ws - websocket client, server and console for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917136 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nj1p21gHzYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911060] Review Request: nodejs-winston - A multi-transport async logging library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911060 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=49cMsWsD2Wa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912110] Review Request: nodejs-watchit - A sensible wrapper around fs.watch for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912110 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nJIrfxmBe7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911189] Review Request: nodejs-stylus - Robust, expressive, and feature-rich CSS superset for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911189 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EH6NEnlyhJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911035] Review Request: nodejs-isodate - JavaScript ISO 8601 date/time parser for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911035 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QH628xC7KRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911058] Review Request: nodejs-url2 - The Node.js URL module plus relative pathing
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911058 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ukyZ2Bnf3Ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911059] Review Request: nodejs-utile - A Node.js drop-in replacement for `util` with some additional advantageous functions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911059 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ai2ayHzmqma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #5) [ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. [jsmith@hockey zen]$ rpmlint drupal7-theme-zen.spec drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm /home/jsmith/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal7-theme-zen-5.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm drupal7-theme-zen.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/drupal7/themes/zen/STARTERKIT/sass-extensions/zen-grids/LICENSE. txt 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Notice that the error is about the incorrect address for the FSF in the license file -- you should work with upstream to get that fixed. The license files are added to the downloads by the Drupal build process. Project owners do not add these themselves. The only way for the project owners to fix this is to push out a new version/release. For this rpmlint error packagers usually only need to notify upstream of the issue. However, we could fix this 2 ways: 1) Include a separate LICENSE.txt file as an RPM source 2) Wait until version 5.2 is released by upstream (this would cause the Drupal build process to add the new license) [ BAD ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. I noticed that zen/js/html5.js and zen/js/html5-respond.js are licensed as both MIT and GPLv2, but the spec file only lists the GPL license Good catch!!! Question: Do you know if license files for each need to be included? Also, I was wondering if there was any precedence for putting the word theme in the package name. The other Drupal modules simply have the name of the project -- basically the part after drupal.org/project/ in the module URL. I was just following the naming convention of drupal7-theme-adaptivetheme and drupal7-theme-ninesixty (the only other themes I know about in the repo). However, I would much prefer taking theme out of the package name! All Drupal machine names are guaranteed to be unique and modules and themes both share the same machine name namespace. I wish there was a drupal-devel mailing list to ask ;) Perhaps for this drupal7 theme we could stick with the drupal7-theme-zen pkg name to conform but also virtually provide drupal7-zen and then update the drupal8 packaging guidelines to specifically call out removing the theme part of the name? I will clear the needinfo flag when I fix the license issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jAM4Hxe2WMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916419] Review Request: python-tw2-slideymenu - toscawidgets2 wrapper for a slidey menu
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916419
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
New scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5302295
$ rpmlint -i -v *python-tw2-slideymenu.src: I: checking
python-tw2-slideymenu.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) slidey - slide,
slides, slider
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-slideymenu.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US slidey -
slide, slides, slider
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-slideymenu.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tw2.slideymenu (timeout 10 seconds)
python-tw2-slideymenu.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/tw2.slideymenu/tw2.slideymenu-2.2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-tw2-slideymenu.noarch: I: checking
python-tw2-slideymenu.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) slidey - slide,
slides, slider
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-slideymenu.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US slidey -
slide, slides, slider
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-slideymenu.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tw2.slideymenu (timeout 10 seconds)
python-tw2-slideymenu.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/tw2.slideymenu/tw2.slideymenu-2.2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Ignorable spelling errors.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
MIT
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
7732ea52f1578cbfa184f5d08b64bbb41ff2816178eb5527c6b34996f29e6b95
tw2.slideymenu-2.2.tar.gz
7732ea52f1578cbfa184f5d08b64bbb41ff2816178eb5527c6b34996f29e6b95
tw2.slideymenu-2.2.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along
[Bug 905255] Review Request: open-vm-tools - Open Virtual Machine Tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255 --- Comment #107 from Ravindra Kumar ravindraku...@vmware.com --- I have modified the spec file to pick new upstream version. The new version has fixed some things that no longer require few configure options, I have removed those now. Following are the updated files, I'm going to checkin. Please review. SPEC File URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c1m1ez3btmj4y6j/open-vm-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2gsya9bbex5xg9q/open-vm-tools-9.2.3-1.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=iyGL7iy2jua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750394] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750394 --- Comment #37 from Kapil Arya ka...@ccs.neu.edu --- Hi Orion, Here are the links to the SRPM and SPEC file for DMTCP 1.2.7: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.7-1.fc19.src.rpm Please let me know if you find any problems with this packaging. Thanks, Kapil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gRZ22y99bpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916419] Review Request: python-tw2-slideymenu - toscawidgets2 wrapper for a slidey menu
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916419 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-tw2-slideymenu Short Description: toscawidgets2 wrapper for a slidey menu Owners: ralph Branches: f19 f18 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MXbVw88hxHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916419] Review Request: python-tw2-slideymenu - toscawidgets2 wrapper for a slidey menu
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916419 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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=9HZWLvFijva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916419] Review Request: python-tw2-slideymenu - toscawidgets2 wrapper for a slidey menu
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916419 --- 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=6nU71JNBMta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- [cut] - I would suggest not copying the fonts into the main directory, but just installing from the original location if possible. Fixed. Updated in-place, same links. [cut] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=it2lJkOc0Za=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite font
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |entypo-fonts - Pictogram|entypo-fonts - Pictogram |Suite |Suite font -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1s8lchMweya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite Font
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |entypo-fonts - Pictogram|entypo-fonts - Pictogram |Suite font |Suite Font -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=r3EfNL6ilma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750394] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750394
--- Comment #38 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.3.0/750394-dmtcp/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- 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 gcc-c++ glibc-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp ,
libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc ,
libdmtcpaware-static - you must specify %{version}-%{release}
Minor:
- I would suggest a blank line between changelog entries.
- Drop %defattr()
- Drop BuildRoot
- Drop %clean
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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 libmtcp ,
libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc ,
libdmtcpaware-static
[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:
LGPL (v2.1 or later), LGPL (v3 or later), LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.3.0/750394-dmtcp/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]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
[Bug 956120] Review Request: zocial-fonts - A css3 Social Buttons Sass Framework fonts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956120 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- New links: spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/zocial/css-social-buttons-fonts.spec srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/zocial/css-social-buttons-fonts-0.3-1.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=1xvB9bMMtPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916431] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot - Toscawidgets2 wrapper for the jqPlot jQuery plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916431 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m 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=JWukvPVzifa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956712] Review Request: OpenLDAP 2.4 - Packaged for RHEL5
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956712 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||mru...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2013-04-25 14:39:59 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you for your submission. There's already a package named openldap. Please request ACLs. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/openldap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OPUZUWJZ1Ya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916431] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot - Toscawidgets2 wrapper for the jqPlot jQuery plugin
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916431
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build for Rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5302891
$ rpmlint -i -v *python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.src: I: checking
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jQuery - j
Query, query, equerry
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
performant - perform ant, perform-ant, performance
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jQuery
- j Query, query, equerry
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tw2.jqplugins.jqplot (timeout 10 seconds)
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/tw2.jqplugins.jqplot/tw2.jqplugins.jqplot-2.0.3.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.noarch: I: checking
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jQuery -
j Query, query, equerry
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
performant - perform ant, perform-ant, performance
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
jQuery - j Query, query, equerry
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.noarch: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tw2.jqplugins.jqplot (timeout 10 seconds)
python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/tw2.jqplugins.jqplot/tw2.jqplugins.jqplot-2.0.3.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Some ignorable spelling errors, again.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
MIT
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
d00a3dddf5c99f98b00fad223eb75be106d853d01b2709adf5528a67094a
tw2.jqplugins.jqplot-2.0.3.tar.gz
d00a3dddf5c99f98b00fad223eb75be106d853d01b2709adf5528a67094a
tw2.jqplugins.jqplot-2.0.3.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in
[Bug 916436] Review Request: python-narcissus-app - WSGI components for Narcissus, realtime log visualization
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916436 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=pVUIjxcRpka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916436] Review Request: python-narcissus-app - WSGI components for Narcissus, realtime log visualization
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916436 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mlhOnAW3lta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916436] Review Request: python-narcissus-app - WSGI components for Narcissus, realtime log visualization
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916436 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.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=USo7rZPRqRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916436] Review Request: python-narcissus-app - WSGI components for Narcissus, realtime log visualization
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916436 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fJRu8CVJsWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916436] Review Request: python-narcissus-app - WSGI components for Narcissus, realtime log visualization
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916436 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tw2-slideymenu-2.2-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LeBgR7Jzana=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823122] Review Request: zookeeper - A high-performance coordination service for distributed applications
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823122 --- Comment #17 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 740026 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=740026action=edit Updated patch for zookeeper-test jar This patch updates the changes for the zookeeper-test jar. It puts the test jar in it's own subpackage and creates a pom and fragments so it can be found by mvn-rpmbuild -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3EFE0QjEIYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916431] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot - Toscawidgets2 wrapper for the jqPlot jQuery plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916431 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot Short Description: Toscawidgets2 wrapper for the jqPlot jQuery plugin Owners: ralph Branches: f19 f18 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lWp8DdSsV8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905255] Review Request: open-vm-tools - Open Virtual Machine Tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255 --- Comment #108 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- open-vm-tools-9.2.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/open-vm-tools-9.2.3-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WBDqVNuJ3Ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955801] Review Request: python-pyface - Generic User Interface objects
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955801
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- The python-traits dependency should be python-Traits on F18 if you
are heading also for this. F17 gave build errors, havn't looked into
those assuming you are not aiming to let this go into F17.
- Some docs are non-utf8, see rpmlint attachment and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8.
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 5365760 bytes in 144 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
Looking at the package list a -doc subpackage seems indeed motivated.
- The .../site-packages/pyface-4.3.0-py2.7.egg-info isn't packaged as
required - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include
= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Seemingly correct in rawhide, problems in F18 and possibly F17.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: 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
Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should
[Bug 916419] Review Request: python-tw2-slideymenu - toscawidgets2 wrapper for a slidey menu
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916419 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Pushed to stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=C7vFUjFbAEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927611] Review Request: pyode - Open-source Python bindings for The Open Dynamics Engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927611 --- Comment #9 from John Morris j...@zultron.com --- Heh, differs by 6e-8, so it fails. Patch coming up. I realize that Pyrex should not be in the Requires: section, only in the BuildRequires: section. My apologies, I was wrong about that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QTCKyELhkna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916419] Review Request: python-tw2-slideymenu - toscawidgets2 wrapper for a slidey menu
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916419 --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Err, pushed to testing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2bSReaKgLKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924333] Review Request: mate-sensors-applet - MATE panel applet for hardware sensors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924333 --- Comment #13 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #12) Both gtk2-devel and dbus-glib-devel are called in configure.ac But i will change it. Thanks 2) gsettings-desktop-schemas-devel Why? gsettings-desktop-schemas is an collection package of gsettings schemas for gnome. And the -devel subpackage is only needed for applications who needs the schemas from gsettings-desktop-schemas. I don't thing that mate-sensor-applet needs gnome gesettings files. It compiles the gsettings schemas fine without it. And i don't see this dependency in any debian package from mate upstream. I know you do this in in a lot of packages. So pls lighten me up, and explain more detailed why this is needed. You're right, I'll remove that from the rest of the mate packages that don't need it. glib2 provides glib-compile-schemas. 3) (for disabling scrollkeeper) I use --disable-scrollkeeper and i don't use BR scrollkepper. And i see no file in /var/scrollkeeper. IMO, rarian-compat is only needed if a package doesn't compile without /usr/bin/scrollkeeper-config which is provide by rarian-compat. But maybe i'm wrong, pls correct me. Scrollkeeper In all current Fedora, rarian has replaced scrollkeeper. I know it may compile without it but I add it out of habit because 9/10 it will fail without it. 2) Is the nvidia flag required? Is there a way to get the aticonfig bit working? It compiles the nvida part also without using the flag if BR libXNVCtrl-devel is set, i use it so that everybody can see that the package is compiled for nvidia usage. Why is this a MUST not to do this? Sorry, that was not a must just a question. I can't set the aticonfig bit because for this i need rpmfusion. OK Is the sed/libtool command really needed? If so can you submit a pull request upstream so that it's not? If not, why? Yes, this is a valid command for fedora's packages to avoid a rpmlint warning. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib- dependency OK -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nH0CdCzK48a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927611] Review Request: pyode - Open-source Python bindings for The Open Dynamics Engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927611 --- Comment #10 from John Morris j...@zultron.com --- Created attachment 740048 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=740048action=edit patch to fix rounding errors in %check script Fix rounding-error test failures on Fedora 17-20 (but not el6!) (64-bit only?) Differences of 5*10^-8, as shown in below output, cause tests to fail. Fix by adding new check 'assertFloatListsAlmostEqual' which recursively sorts through lists/tuples and compares floats with 'assertAlmostEqual'. http://docs.python.org/2/library/unittest.html#unittest.TestCase.assertAlmostEqual == FAIL: testAMotorAxes3 (__main__.TestJointParser) -- Traceback (most recent call last): File tests/test_xode.py, line 594, in testAMotorAxes3 self.assertEqual(ref, axes) AssertionError: Lists differ: [(1.0, 0.0, 0.0), (0.0, 1.0, 0... != [(0.999403953552, 0.0, 0.0... First differing element 0: (1.0, 0.0, 0.0) (0.999403953552, 0.0, 0.0) - [(1.0, 0.0, 0.0), (0.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.0, 0.0, 1.0)] + [(0.999403953552, 0.0, 0.0), + (0.0, 0.999403953552, 0.0), + (0.0, 0.0, 0.999403953552)] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CtnfjTD4TPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916431] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot - Toscawidgets2 wrapper for the jqPlot jQuery plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916431 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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=JvXp3ps3d4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916431] Review Request: python-tw2-jqplugins-jqplot - Toscawidgets2 wrapper for the jqPlot jQuery plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916431 --- 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=2S1mmtZIXha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927611] Review Request: pyode - Open-source Python bindings for The Open Dynamics Engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927611 --- Comment #11 from John Morris j...@zultron.com --- These two should be the last items. Thanks for hanging on during this whole process! I'd like to be co-maintainer, by the way, and I'll be happy to help run this through the process of getting into the stable repos. John -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CyKD1JLhSCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750394] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750394
--- Comment #39 from Kapil Arya ka...@ccs.neu.edu ---
Hi Orion,
Thanks for the quick response. I am putting my responses inline.
Also, could you tell me how did you generate this report so that I can do it
locally and fix issues before sending it to you?
Thanks,
Kapil
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.3.0/750394-dmtcp/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
That was a stupid mistake on my end. Fixed.
- 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 gcc-c++ glibc-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Fixed~
- No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp ,
libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc
,
libdmtcpaware-static - you must specify %{version}-%{release}
Here is slight confusion. libmtcp provides a shared library that is needed by
the main package. libmtcp does not depend on the main package itself. How
should I fix the Requires section for libmtcp in this case?
Minor:
- I would suggest a blank line between changelog entries.
- Drop %defattr()
- Drop BuildRoot
- Drop %clean
Fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tyqiDBKD9aa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956120] Review Request: zocial-fonts - Css Social Buttons Fonts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956120 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |zocial-fonts - A css3 |zocial-fonts - Css Social |Social Buttons Sass |Buttons Fonts |Framework fonts | --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- New links: spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/zocial/css-social-buttons-fonts.spec srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/zocial/css-social-buttons-fonts-0.3-1.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=IBJzFwbdJQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955801] Review Request: python-pyface - Generic User Interface objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955801 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Sorry, somehow missed the fact that the egg-info is indeed packaged. However, this mistake can partly be explained with the somewhat, in my eyes, too simple /* wildcard in the files section. Expanding this to two lines, one matching the lib and one the egg-info would make this easier to read for e. g., sloppy reviewers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sNlGLAHcpha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956712] Review Request: OpenLDAP 2.4 - Packaged for RHEL5
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956712 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no Resolution|CANTFIX |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- This package is called openldap24, not openldap :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NAng1wwH6ma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955801] Review Request: python-pyface - Generic User Interface objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955801 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- (In reply to comment #3) Issues: === - The python-traits dependency should be python-Traits on F18 if you are heading also for this. F17 gave build errors, havn't looked into those assuming you are not aiming to let this go into F17. I'll be pushing the updated python-Traits with the provides out to f18 eventually. - Some docs are non-utf8, see rpmlint attachment and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8. Fixed. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 5365760 bytes in 144 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Looking at the package list a -doc subpackage seems indeed motivated. Oof, indeed. Done. - The .../site-packages/pyface-4.3.0-py2.7.egg-info isn't packaged as required - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include Yeah, I hate wildcards too. http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pyface-4.3.0-2.fc18.src.rpm * Thu Apr 25 2013 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com - 4.3.0-2 - Fix non-UTF-8 files - Add doc sub-package - Be more explicit with files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GrBT5Yfjx4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924333] Review Request: mate-sensors-applet - MATE panel applet for hardware sensors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924333 --- Comment #14 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- scratch build at koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5303230 %changelog * Wed Apr 25 2013 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de - 1.6.0-2 - add --disable-schemas-compile configure flag - organized %%postun scpriptlet section - droped specific versioning from BR's - fix usage of spaces and tabs in spec file - change BR dbus-glib-devel to gtk2-devel Spec URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SPECS/mate-sensors-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SRPM/mate-sensors-applet-1.6.0-2.fc20.src.rpm @ ati maybe we can create a subpackage at rpmfusion which contains mate-sensors-applet-ati = (full)mate-sensors-applet - mate-sensors-applet I'm willing to create and maintain this subpackage, but i have no ati graphics hardware to test it. Do you have an ati hardware? PS: Do you have time to review the other open reviews or should i search for another reviewer? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ofk6WWVtvDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924333] Review Request: mate-sensors-applet - MATE panel applet for hardware sensors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924333 --- Comment #15 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Yes I have an ATI Radeon HD 5770 I can test with I will start work on the other reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vbDvF7IrWba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 954182] Review Request: ctpp2 - Template engine for separating data processing from presentation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954182 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TQj3QzusWCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 750394] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750394
--- Comment #40 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
(In reply to comment #39)
Also, could you tell me how did you generate this report so that I can do it
locally and fix issues before sending it to you?
The fedora-review package/command.
Issues:
===
No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp ,
libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc
,
libdmtcpaware-static - you must specify %{version}-%{release}
Here is slight confusion. libmtcp provides a shared library that is needed
by the main package. libmtcp does not depend on the main package itself. How
should I fix the Requires section for libmtcp in this case?
It's find to leave out the requires on the main package in libmtcp in that
case.
You'll need:
Requires: libmtcp%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
in the main package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UrnTu7fisPa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955801] Review Request: python-pyface - Generic User Interface objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955801 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I get 404 (not found) on the last url?! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NGywsTE7n0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite Font
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- You need to bump the release for each change (even during review). I've got some questions about this: - What is the difference between the stuff in the @font-face directory and that in the Desktop typeface directory? - Why not ship all of the fonts? - Is the .svg file needed? - What is the .woff file and is it needed? - Do you need both the .ttf and the .otf files? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=s49wZLsG1ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955801] Review Request: python-pyface - Generic User Interface objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955801 --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- oops: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-pyface-4.3.0-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jvjxxvQEq8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 954182] Review Request: ctpp2 - Template engine for separating data processing from presentation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954182 --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Fails to build from source on x86_64: ... + mv /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ctpp2-2.7.1-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/man /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ctpp2-2.7.1-2.fc16.x86_64//usr/share/man + mkdir /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ctpp2-2.7.1-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib64 mkdir: cannot create directory `/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/ctpp2-2.7.1-2.fc16.x86_64/usr/lib64': File exists -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cw3lGsigGIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928841] Review Request: drupal7-theme-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928841 --- Comment #7 from Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #6) The license files are added to the downloads by the Drupal build process. Project owners do not add these themselves. The only way for the project owners to fix this is to push out a new version/release. That's fine -- I'm willing to let it go for now, as long as upstream knows about the issue and will address it in a future release. It's not a critical issue, but something that should be addressed. [ BAD ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. I noticed that zen/js/html5.js and zen/js/html5-respond.js are licensed as both MIT and GPLv2, but the spec file only lists the GPL license Good catch!!! Question: Do you know if license files for each need to be included? I wouldn't worry about including a license file for a one-file Javascript library. (And, just for the sake of completeness -- I don't think we need to package these two javascript libraries separately, at least until the Javascript packaging guidelines are ratified by the FPC.) I'd just make sure that the license line in the .spec file mentions the other licenses, and maybe even put a comment in there that the theme itself is GPL, but the two Javascript libraries are dual-licensed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wnMc8HVfyCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911060] Review Request: nodejs-winston - A multi-transport async logging library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911060 Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gre...@freenet.de Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gre...@freenet.de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MeOvyRL9aLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955801] Review Request: python-pyface - Generic User Interface objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955801 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- OK, the old spec link seems updated anyway, reviewing that. Looks good. **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=KT8f5UclU0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955801] Review Request: python-pyface - Generic User Interface objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955801 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pyface Short Description: Generic User Interface objects Owners: orion Branches: el6 f18 f19 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=7WCHjECrbaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 954182] Review Request: ctpp2 - Template engine for separating data processing from presentation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954182 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Just remove the whole if clause, everything is working fine without it. Don't ship the static library (.a). Either delete it or don't build it in the first place. # skipped RPATH due to build errors, also following upstream's spec example -- That comment is misleading. It's part of our guidelines not to allow rpaths, refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath. Just drop it. Please be more specific about the manfiles, the headers and also the name of the library. Doing that, you'll notice, the manpages are installed in the wrong place: /usr/share/man/man/man1/ctpp2-config.1.gz should be /usr/share/man/man1/ctpp2-config.1.gz. Don't ship INSTALL. I'd suggest to not use the version macro in Patch0. You'd have to rename a fitting patch on every update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pZg4qNfAnUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 954182] Review Request: ctpp2 - Template engine for separating data processing from presentation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954182 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lIbeg968iMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911060] Review Request: nodejs-winston - A multi-transport async logging library for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911060 --- Comment #1 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- Created attachment 740085 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=740085action=edit review looks good - besides some obvious errors about missing deps the test runs fine? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SqKMucU6xUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751537] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751537 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Sx5vWhNBNca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741706] Review Request: ttyrec - tty recorder
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741706 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(jmartin@learningo ||bjects.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q9wJlHlVLTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738465] Review Request: rubygem-barista - Simple, integrated support for CoffeeScript in Rack and Rails applications
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738465 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(fot...@redhat.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QZQ0lYvyiVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 740687] Review Request: python-pygraphviz - PyGraphviz package for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=740687 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(riva...@gmail.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pVkMvHu3i5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914798] Review Request: jvgs - Minimalistic platform game loosely based on xkcd webcomic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914798 --- Comment #11 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #10) Wow, this package has had some license churn. I see that the AUTHORS file still says: The soundtrack was made by Nine Inch Nails and released under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ and http://ghosts.nin.com for details. The Non-Commercial clause is still there, and the URL now points to the non-commercial version of the license. That license is not acceptable for Fedora. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3 I think I cannot help much here :-( Most likely the Non-Commercial, but allows fair use, etc, is to prevent big labels from taking possession of the work, as download of the musics is free and encouraged; there is no obligation to buy it. Is this correct, or a mistake of some kind? jvgs-data.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/jvgs/resources/level-end/girl.lua I believe it is correct. The .lua level files are used to implement event handlers, like collision check, damage, etc, and if you play the last level you will understand why it is empty. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NOWFJ1kfjIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite Font
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #5) You need to bump the release for each change (even during review). No :) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_per_Release I've got some questions about this: Trying to answer, but bear in mind I'm on thin ice here. This is my first font package. Furthermore, it's about a web font which doesn't seem to have good guidelines in place(?) What is the difference between the stuff in the @font-face directory and that in the Desktop typeface directory? Just assuming from the name: the desktop stuff is more like a regular font, targeted to be used by local applications. The @font-face stuff should then be what the web application send to a client requesting a font after parsing a css3 @font-face tag. - Why not ship all of the fonts? Basically because I'm lazy, I'm packaging this as a dependency for openerp7 which is a web application. Also, since this is a web-centric symbol font, I don't really see much value of it in e. g. a word processor (might be wrong, for sure). - Is the .svg file needed? A @font-face tag typically lists several alternative formats for a font, svg sometimes being one of them. I see no reason to limit what the web server can offer in this respect. - What is the .woff file and is it needed? woff format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOFF Needed: see above. - Do you need both the .ttf and the .otf files? Here are not otf files I can see(?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bsUr54lP8ka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914798] Review Request: jvgs - Minimalistic platform game loosely based on xkcd webcomic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914798 --- Comment #12 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- What you can do is exclude the soundtrack from the Fedora package, and include a README that says, If you want a soundtrack for this game, make sure you can comply with the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license, then download the track from such and such a URL and install it in such and such a place in the filesystem. Will the game work if the soundtrack is missing? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VJJKycOgC5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite Font
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) You need to bump the release for each change (even during review). No :) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: Guidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_per_Release Ooo, fun. I'm going to quibble though and say that it has been built (by me), and not updating the release makes reviews harder. What is the difference between the stuff in the @font-face directory and that in the Desktop typeface directory? Just assuming from the name: the desktop stuff is more like a regular font, targeted to be used by local applications. The @font-face stuff should then be what the web application send to a client requesting a font after parsing a css3 @font-face tag. Hmm, okay, but I still wonder what the differences are. - Why not ship all of the fonts? Basically because I'm lazy, I'm packaging this as a dependency for openerp7 which is a web application. Also, since this is a web-centric symbol font, I don't really see much value of it in e. g. a word processor (might be wrong, for sure). This doesn't sit right - if we're packaging the font, the whole thing should be packaged. - Is the .svg file needed? A @font-face tag typically lists several alternative formats for a font, svg sometimes being one of them. I see no reason to limit what the web server can offer in this respect. Okay, if it is a usable format - just seemed strange to me. - What is the .woff file and is it needed? woff format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOFF Needed: see above. Thanks (who's being lazy now :) - Do you need both the .ttf and the .otf files? Here are not otf files I can see(?) Sorry, they are in the Desktop typeface directory and not (yet) packaged. I think some more discussion may need to happen with the packaging committee and the font folks (i.e. Nicolas). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OaUrGKTsO8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite Font
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- For example - it might be worth coming up with a scheme where the @font-face files are installed into a web-accessible location rather than /usr/share/fonts, espcially if the *.ttf files are different (which these ones appear to be): Binary files ./@font-face/Entypo @font-face/entypo.ttf and Desktop typeface/Entypo.ttf differ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qzuje8psIla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956127] Review Request: entypo-fonts - Pictogram Suite Font
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956127 --- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I'm all for it, trusting you to handle the process. (Feeling a bit ashamed, as it turns out this was not a fair deal. Seems that I will owe you one more before this is over). Don't forget we might have to re-evaluate if it's really a good idea to package web-fonts. In general, is there such thing as a web-accessible location besides the very web-app space? The simple solution is to handle web-fonts as client-side javascript i. e. allowing a general bundling exception. The crucial problem with licenses could be handled by forcing web-fonts into a subpackage. This is not part of the review discussion, just some input when contacting Nicolas, FPC etc. The background links in comment #2 and comment #3 are important input to this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zJbQWNtC3Ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914798] Review Request: jvgs - Minimalistic platform game loosely based on xkcd webcomic
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914798 --- Comment #13 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #12) What you can do is exclude the soundtrack from the Fedora package, and include a README that says, If you want a soundtrack for this game, make sure you can comply with the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license, then download the track from such and such a URL and install it in such and such a place in the filesystem. Will the game work if the soundtrack is missing? Moving /usr/share/jvgs/resources/music to some backup dir and starting the game works fine (without sound of course). I could write a README telling to download the sourceforge tarball and copy the music to the proper place. But I think it is better to forget about this review for now, as the proper place for it should be rpmfusion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vamLA0PRDna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956654] Review Request: python-pbr - Python Build Reasonableness
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956654
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||p...@draigbrady.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@draigbrady.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com ---
It's debatable that this is worth packaging as it only seems needed to build
the upstream openstack tarballs?
Anyway package looks good
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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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]: 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/padraig/t/review-python-
pbr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 24 files.
[-]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 924513] Review Request: zanata-api - Zanata API modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924513 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CezKfivq2sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924513] Review Request: zanata-api - Zanata API modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924513 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zanata-api-2.2.0-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-api-2.2.0-6.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=J7XwWfmAYXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924513] Review Request: zanata-api - Zanata API modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924513 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zanata-api-2.2.0-6.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-api-2.2.0-6.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pxX5Zl3bAIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924513] Review Request: zanata-api - Zanata API modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924513 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zanata-api-2.2.0-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-api-2.2.0-6.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HYo4ZU7aaza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
