[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs-tools - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 Juerg Haefliger jue...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Rwi7PMbmBZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958132] Review Request: soxr - The SoX Resampler library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958132 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com --- Great that this got packaged so quickly. kudos to all involved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DiUZdk5auva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957573] Review Request: php-aws-sdk - amazon web services sdk for php
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957573 --- Comment #9 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de --- Created attachment 742106 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=742106action=edit pre-review issues left: - insufficient requires; see output of 'phpci print --recursive --report extension ...AWSSDKforPHP' - the tarball ships multiple licenses. I spotted ASL and BSD. Please identify them, adjust the license tag and leave a comment about the location of the 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=QAkK0Ft2Xla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957800] Review Request: tegrarcm - Send code to a Tegra device in recovery mode
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957800 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tegrarcm Short Description: Send code to a Tegra device in recovery mode Owners: kwizart Branches: f17 f18 f19 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=35jQYzFuxea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957800] Review Request: tegrarcm - Send code to a Tegra device in recovery mode
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957800 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TAwZvV5IQya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867282] Review Request: glite-jobid-api-c - C library handling gLite jobid
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867282
Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package does not match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel 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.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
%{optflags} and %{__global_ldflags} not propagated to gcc.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
There are bundled files form openssl's crypto library:
md32_common.h md5_dgst.c md5.h md5_locl.h
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
There is bundled code from libcrypto, which violates the no bundling
guideline.
[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.
There is no license file in the sourecs.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
The bundled files from libcrypto has addidtional license informtion
which is not reflected in the specfile.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
--prefix=%{_prefix} would be better than --prefix=/usr
[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.
[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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
See below.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[?]: Uses parallel make.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
The packager is upstream, so querying would be simple.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
Latest EMI version is 2.2.8
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate
[Bug 957422] Review Request: tea - A text editor with the hundreds of features
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957422
--- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
And what is it?
install -p -D -m 755 bin/%{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
Oh..Forgot to remove it...
* change *-devel to pkgconfig(*) where it is possible (pkgconfig(QtGui),
pkgconfig(aspell), pkgconfig(hunspell), pkgconfig(libpng)).
Why?(Not very understand)
This is issue - not bug.
Using pkgconfig() make spec packagename-independent.
You don't know how these packages will be named in next Fedora release or EL.
I'll leave these things as I can know the next names ;)
Make release provides compiling without debug information. Make debug -
with it.
Just add CONFIG += debug_and_release to src.pro
This is issue too - not a bug.
Let's fix bugs first, for such issues I think I can handle them later.
This is 10-sec action:
for i in f17 f18 f19 rawhide; do koji build --scratch $i srpm; done
Another usual tool - fedore-review:
fedora-review -r -n srpm
I have to say fedora-review doesn't work on my machine, I tried to fix it.
So...(In fact I also want to review your package)
So - last part of preview - 3rd parties.
If they are not modified - you must delete them and replace with linking to
shared ones.
minizip: ioapi.* zip.* unzip.*
quazip: qua*.*
zlib: zconf.h zlib.h
This means I have to add BR like quazip/minizip-devel and zlib-devel.
Bu now because the program use the bundled ones so a lot of errors come out.
Should I asked upstream or fixed by myself?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qhXUSj3kD1a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957422] Review Request: tea - A text editor with the hundreds of features
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957422 --- Comment #14 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eug...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #13) So - last part of preview - 3rd parties. If they are not modified - you must delete them and replace with linking to shared ones. minizip: ioapi.* zip.* unzip.* quazip: qua*.* zlib: zconf.h zlib.h This means I have to add BR like quazip/minizip-devel and zlib-devel. Bu now because the program use the bundled ones so a lot of errors come out. Should I asked upstream or fixed by myself? You can try both ways. But 1) developer can refuse to do something (as he rejected my 3 bugreports yesterday). 2) guides _disallow_ to ship libraries that exist in repos. So - you can try to do (e.g. minizip): * delete minizip sources * add required things into src.pro * update #include (if nesessary) * try to build and run. Repeate with next. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3D1wETmQIca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957415] Review Request: lnav - A curses-based tool for viewing and analyzing log files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957415 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: lnav - |Review Request: lnav - A |Logfile Navigator |curses-based tool for ||viewing and analyzing log ||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=9Z6XwCgP7aa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957422] Review Request: tea - A text editor with the hundreds of features
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957422 --- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #14) Ok. Besides should I use QMAKE_CFLAGS+=%optflags QMAKE_CXXFLAGS+=%optflags QMAKE_STRIP=/bin/true in build section?(from opensuse guidelines) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gi6WBLc8JIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #4) Thanks for the review! I'm currently not sure on how to move forward, if one of the rules for having a package accepted is an active upstream, then we can close the review request. What do you think? First of all, contact upstream asking License file including in source archive at least. You will know if upstream folks is still interested or not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=74bBbRqDPla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882765] Review Request: wikindx - Free bibliographic and quotations/notes management and article authoring system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882765 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Hi Mario, Thank you for the review. Unfortunately, the package isn't ready as per the web application guidelines it seems. I need to figure out how to package it so that it'll run without having any files in /var/www/html. It might take a me a little time(I have very little experience with packaging web apps). I've gotten some help off the devel list though. I'll update the package as soon as I can find some cycles. Thanks, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xjPXv5fEvAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 954108] Review Request: gimp-gap - The GIMP Animation Package
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954108 --- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- * I strongly recommend running autoreconf -f in the gimp-gap directory and fixing all the errors and warnings and submitting the fixes upstream. * sh autogen.sh on F19 (perhaps not only there) runs into problems detecting automake = 1.7. It fails despite F19 coming with Automake 1.13. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DHBAlbl4V6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs-tools - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 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=MEpj87IYv5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916087] Review Request: cloud-initramfs-tools - cloud image initramfs management utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916087 --- Comment #21 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=ceaWFllobra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957800] Review Request: tegrarcm - Send code to a Tegra device in recovery mode
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957800 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=sL7SDAUuQQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957800] Review Request: tegrarcm - Send code to a Tegra device in recovery mode
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957800 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TtEJMnEUqYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 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=kkkGXGkCw0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Vohpyzk5BEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956201] Review Request: nifti2dicom - Converts 3D medical images to DICOM 2D series
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956201 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at 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=bSiKIDY4gxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958413] New: Review Request: perl-CPAN-Meta-Check - Verify requirements in a CPAN::Meta object
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958413 Bug ID: 958413 Summary: Review Request: perl-CPAN-Meta-Check - Verify requirements in a CPAN::Meta object Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-CPAN-Meta-Check/branches/fedora/perl-CPAN-Meta-Check.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-CPAN-Meta-Check/perl-CPAN-Meta-Check-0.005-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module verifies if requirements described in a CPAN::Meta object are present. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EsZr7qq1sha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958414] New: Review Request: perl-Test-CheckDeps - Check for presence of dependencies
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958414 Bug ID: 958414 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-CheckDeps - Check for presence of dependencies Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Test-CheckDeps/branches/fedora/perl-Test-CheckDeps.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Test-CheckDeps/perl-Test-CheckDeps-0.002-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module adds a test that assures all dependencies have been installed properly. If requested, it can bail out all testing on error. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7XaWmi7kGYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958414] Review Request: perl-Test-CheckDeps - Check for presence of dependencies
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958414 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||958413 --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- This package is needed for current versions of perl-Test-Kwalitee. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ey8M7E1B8Na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958413] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Meta-Check - Verify requirements in a CPAN::Meta object
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958413 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||958414 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NHfPLZfLfda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957422] Review Request: tea - A text editor with the hundreds of features
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957422 --- Comment #16 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eug...@gmail.com --- I don't know. Use fedora-devel maillist. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2WJzsIhAEBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957422] Review Request: tea - A text editor with the hundreds of features
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957422 --- Comment #17 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eug...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) Ok. Besides should I use QMAKE_CFLAGS+=%optflags QMAKE_CXXFLAGS+=%optflags QMAKE_STRIP=/bin/true in build section?(from opensuse guidelines) I think - adding debug_and_relese and make relase == QMAKE_STRIP=/bin/true -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wj6S5Rclm9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956201] Review Request: nifti2dicom - Converts 3D medical images to DICOM 2D series
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956201
--- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Ship AUTHORS, NEWS and COPYING as documentation!
As far as I can see, InsightToolkit-examples is not a BR; Neither is graphviz.
Prefer .tar.gz, as it is slightly smaller. You can use the name macro in
Source0.
Please find other comments inline below.
Cosmetics:
- You can remove the slash in %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}
- Insert an empty line between the two paragraphs of the description
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
/media/speicher1/makerpm/956201-nifti2dicom/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
That's the outcome of getting a tarball for a Git tag. The resulting file has
a different name. I don't know if something can be done about that.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
Due to missing InsightToolkit builds don't succeed on PPC/PPC64 at the moment.
The cause is a missing gdcm build. I haven't investigated ARM, but it doesn't
have InsightToolkit either. I informed the maintainer of gdcm and
InsightToolkit. If that can't be settled somehow, you should add an ExcludeArch
tag.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/media/speicher1/makerpm/956201-nifti2dicom/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Use mandir instead of datadir/man
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/media/speicher1/makerpm/956201-nifti2dicom/diff.txt
See above!
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[Bug 958431] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958431 Bug ID: 958431 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kdan...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/feclipse-maven-plugin/feclipse-maven-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/feclipse-maven-plugin/feclipse-maven-plugin-0.0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Eclipse repo2runnable Maven Mojo Fedora Account System Username: kdaniel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RInYAGZRTva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958431] Review Request: feclipse-maven-plugin - Eclipse repo2runnable Maven Mojo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958431 Krzysztof Daniel kdan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: |package name here - short |feclipse-maven-plugin - |summary here |Eclipse repo2runnable Maven ||Mojo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MnUHfZJQp5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919265] Review Request: Bijiben - Note taking app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 --- Comment #19 from Pierre-Yves Luyten p...@luyten.fr --- I built 3.9.1 against rawhide. SPEC : http://py.luyten.fr/Publique/gnome/bjb/391-1/bijiben.spec SRPM : http://py.luyten.fr/Publique/gnome/bjb/391-1/bijiben-3.9.1-1.fc20.src.rpm For F19, there is still 3.8.2 to come. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=54C8kXxJxHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958431] Review Request: feclipse-maven-plugin - Eclipse repo2runnable Maven Mojo
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958431 Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rgrun...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kS1xymuDNia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957520] Review Request: rf - read feeds from any source
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957520
Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package 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
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Texinfo files are properly installed
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in rf
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/957520-rf/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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
-- Your package needs just
BuildRequires: xmlstarlet
Requires:curl
Requires:lynx
Requires(post): info
Requires(preun): info
bash, sed, ... can be omitted.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
-- A new release results available:
https://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.16.tar.bz2
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]:
[Bug 856516] Review Request: perl-podlators - Format POD source into various output formats
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856516 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Petr - I'd like to see this in EPEL6. Would you care to maintain it there, or shall I? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ilZxFE5cBJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 641018] Review Request: rubygem-nanoc3 - A web publishing system written in Ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641018 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Whiteboard|NotReady| Last Closed||2013-05-01 11:20:46 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TTSWhJL56Ca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 650767] Review Request: aiki - A CMS Creator Web Application
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650767 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter | Last Closed||2013-05-01 11:21:09 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7qJlSCupkAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649826] Review Request: instantbird - Instant messaging client based on XULrunner and libpurple
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649826 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Whiteboard|NotReady| Last Closed||2013-05-01 11:21:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BZHBwtLpEwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770721] Review Request: substance - Swing look-and-feel library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770721 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR),|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |652183 (FE-JAVASIG), 754246 | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-05-01 11:25:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BBLoxj56yVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 754246] Review Request: TV-Browser - A TV Browsing application
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754246 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|770721 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8r1KXG4Wa0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771480] Review Request: trident - A Java animation library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771480 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR),|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |770721 | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|needinfo?(s.bau...@gmx.net) | Last Closed||2013-05-01 11:25:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=15zQ0hornLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770721] Review Request: substance - Swing look-and-feel library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770721 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|771480 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YDPEiunU0Fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 638459] Review Request: mosquitto - An Open Source MQTT v3 Broker
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638459 --- Comment #12 from Eric Sandeen esand...@redhat.com --- Rich, please go ahead take it over. I'm just too oversubscribed at the present time. Thanks, -Eric -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q5vfTbHJsNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735944] Review Request: comex-base - base component for comex project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735944 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(hmandevteam@gmail ||.com) --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. spec and srpm links are invalid. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xWKFW5F82fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798738] Review request: mysqlenum - is an automatic blind SQL injection tool.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798738 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(nobody@fedoraproj ||ect.org) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DeUTUOs9rIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 657071] Review Request: fuse-ext2 - Ext2/3/4 file-system support for FUSE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657071 Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dwrobel@ertelnet. | |rybnik.pl) | --- Comment #8 from Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl --- Updated files, fixes build for =F18. Spec URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/fuse-ext2.spec SRPM URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/fuse-ext2-0.0.7-6.fc20.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=ESUv8lkT74a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796112] Review Request: rubygem-tidy_ffi - Tidy library interface via FFI
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796112 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(guillermo.gomez@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. Build fails for me; here is a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5321601 In addition, this almost certainly needs some updating for current ruby guidelines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=g5n8IirFbDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795451] Review Request: basex - XML database and XPath/XQuery processor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795451 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(dimitar.popov@uni ||-konstanz.de) --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. This fails to build for me; here is a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5321604 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WfpzLCJyjVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802862] Review Request: drupal6-votingapi - Voting API module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802862 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: drupal6-votingapi New Branches: el5 Owners: jknife siwinski InitialCC: Adding el5 branch to follow most other drupal6 packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0wq7vnz9ZJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735944] Review Request: comex-base - base component for comex project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735944 Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(hmandevteam@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #7 from Armando Basile hmandevt...@gmail.com --- i updating specs and srmps, thanks for reply -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LMI0SBbhQ2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||955582 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UwtpfM0usma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 950041] Review Request (rename): nodejs-less - The dynamic stylesheet language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950041 Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||958484 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8ASb5TWIkla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802862] Review Request: drupal6-votingapi - Voting API module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802862 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=VNOmdtVZzAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802862] Review Request: drupal6-votingapi - Voting API module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802862 --- Comment #14 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=V3AHIUQBJwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798738] Review request: mysqlenum - is an automatic blind SQL injection tool.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798738 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(nobody@fedoraproj | |ect.org)| Flags||needinfo?(pj.pandit@yahoo.c ||o.in) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yL4xPdrQC0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958431] Review Request: feclipse-maven-plugin - Eclipse repo2runnable Maven Mojo
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958431
Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
feclipse-maven-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runnable -
burnable
feclipse-maven-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dropins -
drop ins, drop-ins, droppings
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0
[-] 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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: 782fe7aca281e6ca2fdcdca91089ad48
MD5SUM upstream package: 782fe7aca281e6ca2fdcdca91089ad48
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[-] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[-] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[-] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[-] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[-] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[-] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
fedora-review -v -b 958431 -m fedora-19-x86_64
(had to use latest builds from f19-build in mock config)
=== Final Notes ===
I see that org.fedorahosted and org.fedoraproject are the main gid prefixes
used for fedora-specific maven packages. This package is using org.fedora.
I wonder if one of the other namespaces should be used to reflect this trend.
(repoquery
--repofrompath=raw,http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/repos/rawhide/latest/x86_64/
--repoid=raw --provides * | grep mvn | grep fedora)
Everything looks fine to me though.
***
[Bug 867959] Review Request: libgit2 - C library for git
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867959 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com --- /me notes that the urls for srpm and spec file are currently 404. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fSq9N3Wssua=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
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||tdaw...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tdaw...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Very good package. There is only one thing wrong that I was able to find, and
that is because it's taken so long to review.
The current version is version 1.1.0, you have 0.12.3.
I know that 0.12.3 was the current version that you packaged this, but if you
could update it to 1.1.0 I'll pass it.
It looks like version 1.1.0 has fixes for the patch that you have as well as
the dependancy on generic-pool.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[X]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/quake/review/911044-nodejs-pg/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.
[X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream
[Bug 954108] Review Request: gimp-gap - The GIMP Animation Package
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954108 --- Comment #15 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) @Antonio gimp-gap does not contain .configure script as it from git and not release, so I need generate it. You may work with upstream in order to release gimp-gap with a preconfigured script (like most upstreams do) As I known it is common practice to distribute in tarball configure scripts only for released versions. otherwise by managing scripts locally, ensuring yourself they have been generated fine especially after a new Autotools release; autogen.sh already prefer most new available version. It especially for F19 and rawhide i need patch it. Please see in spec patch and comment on upstream bugreport about it. integrating all changes as patches or additional files. Changes in what? It is because I prefer do not run separate command instead of upstream autor generation script. (In reply to comment #14) * I strongly recommend running autoreconf -f in the gimp-gap directory and fixing all the errors and warnings and submitting the fixes upstream. autoreconf -f silent on gimp-gap directory after run autogen.sh (before it fails and require run automake, autoheader and so on). * sh autogen.sh on F19 (perhaps not only there) runs into problems detecting automake = 1.7. It fails despite F19 coming with Automake 1.13. Yes, it why patch provided. See spec and comment before. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SOcXzbHCvaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924682] Review Request: gimp-elsamuko - Elsamukos script collection for the GIMP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924682 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Hi. There is not any License file in source archive (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text). Have you already requested the inclusion to upstream ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SidfJuQiz3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958523] New: Review Request: python-envisage - Extensible application framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958523 Bug ID: 958523 Summary: Review Request: python-envisage - Extensible application framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-envisage.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-envisage-4.3.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Envisage is a Python-based framework for building extensible applications, that is, applications whose functionality can be extended by adding plug-ins. Envisage provides a standard mechanism for features to be added to an application, whether by the original developer or by someone else. In fact, when you build an application using Envisage, the entire application consists primarily of plug-ins. In this respect, it is similar to the Eclipse and Netbeans frameworks for Java applications. Each plug-in is able to: * Advertise where and how it can be extended (its extension points). * Contribute extensions to the extension points offered by other plug-ins. * Create and share the objects that perform the real work of the application (services). The Envisage project provides the basic machinery of the plug-in framework as well as GUI building tools (envisage.ui). The workbench is the older way to build GUIs from Envisage. It is now recommended to use the Task framework. Fedora Account System Username: orion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YKKoR1cGg8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958523] Review Request: python-envisage - Extensible application framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958523 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||829580 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3tG3xcBS7ka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829580] Review Request: python-traitsui - User interface tools designed to complement Traits
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829580 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||958523 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EF5DzS0G4Ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 954108] Review Request: gimp-gap - The GIMP Animation Package
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954108 --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- autoreconf -f silent on gimp-gap directory after run autogen.sh (before it fails and require run automake, autoheader and so on). Please read man autoreconf, so you know what it does. A first run of sh autogen.sh prints the same stuff, because it also runs the individual autotools. Those are issues that should get fixed. Especially the deprecated stuff may lead to problems sometime in the future, and then you will be unable to create the configure script. There is no need to use the autogen.sh script anyway, which also executes the configure script, because you should be able to run autoreconf instead (or autoreconf -f). And you can use %configure appropriately, too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QJHcOIh9OMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958533] New: Review Request: android-json-org-java - Androids rewrite of the evil licensed Json.org
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958533 Bug ID: 958533 Summary: Review Request: android-json-org-java - Androids rewrite of the evil licensed Json.org Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-json-org-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-json-org-java-4.2.2-0.1.r1.2.fc18.src.rpm Description: Json.org is a popular java library to parse and create json string from the author of the json standard Douglas Crockford. His implementation however is not free software[1]. Therefor the Android team did a cleanroom reimplementation of a json library to be used inplace of the original one. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=J850axA4y9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958533] Review Request: android-json-org-java - Androids rewrite of the evil licensed Json.org
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958533 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||837450 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=h4evHShVz2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837450] Review Request: android - Google Android Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837450 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||958533 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-4.1.1.4-1.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=zeDlEujumla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789113] Review Request: libg15 - A Library to handle the LCD and extra keys on the Logitech G15
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789113 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR),|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |499109 | |(bonding,Bug,interface,mult | |iple) | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-05-01 15:08:46 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kB6lkSSCWja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787364] Review Request: clipgrab - Streaming videos platforms grabber
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787364 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-05-01 15:10:13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K9F8eQ1hw3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947071] Review Request: monitorix - A free, open source, lightweight system monitoring tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947071 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #11 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- I've sponsored Christopher. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=53mv50bsjua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947450] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Helpers - Various portability utilities for module builders
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947450 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-ExtUtils-Helpers-0.017-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5QYrCfER16a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 950639] Review Request: c-ares19 - A library that performs asynchronous DNS operations
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950639 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-05-01 15:23:36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MPeObCUiTGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 950639] Review Request: c-ares19 - A library that performs asynchronous DNS operations
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950639 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libuv-0.10.4-1.el6, nodejs-0.10.4-1.el6, http-parser-2.0-4.20121128gitcd01361.el6, c-ares19-1.9.1-4.el6.3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=w5CpYQsxD1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815018] Review Request: nodejs - javascript fast build framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815018 --- Comment #86 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libuv-0.10.4-1.el6, nodejs-0.10.4-1.el6, http-parser-2.0-4.20121128gitcd01361.el6, c-ares19-1.9.1-4.el6.3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5WFLiPgTEra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947450] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Helpers - Various portability utilities for module builders
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947450 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-ExtUtils-Helpers-0.017-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ukeEvAYymaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 954108] Review Request: gimp-gap - The GIMP Animation Package
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954108 --- Comment #17 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- (In reply to comment #16) A first run of sh autogen.sh prints the same stuff, because it also runs the individual autotools. Those are issues that should get fixed. Especially the deprecated stuff may lead to problems sometime in the future, and then you will be unable to create the configure script. I think we may focusing on fixing such issues when it happened. Sometime in future when it really will lead to problems and will unable to generate configure script, is not? There is no need to use the autogen.sh script anyway, which also executes the configure script, because you should be able to run autoreconf instead (or autoreconf -f). And you can use %configure appropriately, too. I sure what I may omit upstream author work and run command from autogen.sh directly from spec. But for what? I don't see any advantages to do that. Run configure script in any case is appropriate and desired as I call make then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=R8sJsx9FRPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829580] Review Request: python-traitsui - User interface tools designed to complement Traits
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829580
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leamas.a...@gmail.com
--- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
I'll make this review
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 9400320 bytes in 294 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
-- A -doc package seems indeed motivated.
- The top python_sitelib definition is not necessary.
- The wildcard in %files is too generic, please specify the involved files.
= 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 443 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/mk/FedoraReview/829580-python-
traitsui/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: 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.
[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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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:
[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:
[-]: 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
[Bug 949614] Review Request: python-v4l2 - A Python binding for the v4l2
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949614 --- Comment #3 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com --- I need this for a current project - I change the licences to GPLv2+ SPEC http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-v4l2.spec SRPM http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-v4l2-0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm Best Regards! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kK9dfTJchya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829580] Review Request: python-traitsui - User interface tools designed to complement Traits
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829580 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-traitsui.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-traitsui-4.3.0-2.fc18.src.rpm * Wed May 1 2013 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com - 4.3.0-2 - Split documentation in to doc sub-package - Add requires numpy - More explicit file listing - Drop sitelib macro -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cKXRo9R8Hza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829580] Review Request: python-traitsui - User interface tools designed to complement Traits
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829580 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- 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=BTJH9hjnDya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829580] Review Request: python-traitsui - User interface tools designed to complement Traits
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829580 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks! Envisage won't be ready until I get a chance to test against this. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-traitsui Short Description: User interface tools designed to complement Traits Owners: orion Branches: f18 f19 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=ouaazmGlzpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947450] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-Helpers - Various portability utilities for module builders
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947450 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-ExtUtils-Helpers-0.019 ||-1.fc19 Resolution|ERRATA |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MApLmJTA8Pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957520] Review Request: rf - read feeds from any source
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957520 --- Comment #2 from Juan Manuel juanmabcm...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf.spec SRPM URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/rf/rf-0.4.16-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: command line scriptable feed reader with default feeds ( http://code.google.com/p/readfeed ) Fedora Account System Username: juanmabc *** -- Your package needs just BuildRequires: xmlstarlet Requires:curl Requires:lynx Requires(post): info Requires(preun): info bash, sed, ... can be omitted. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ***: Quoting: Exceptions:There is no need to include the following packages or their dependencies as *BuildRequires* because they would occur too often. These packages are considered the minimum build environment. I use them in *Requires*, which is completely different and has no exceptions. Note that BuildRequires xmlstarlet i assume is a typo, since there is no BuildRequire dependency for it, and the fact that has no BuildRequires is precissely because of the Exceptions. Requires are what is needed at runtime, BuildRequires at compile time. *** -- A new release results available: https://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.16.tar.bz2 ***: This is correct and fixed. *** -- Source link is wrong. https://readfeed.googlecode.com/files/rf-0.4.12.tar.bz2 ***: googlecode happens to be really like this on fedora scripts, the link is valid (as you can see clicking) and the issue is known, packages get approved with this complain, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890733#c3 , quoting: The download URL is valid, the tarball is downloadable. That's a common problem with Googlecode stuff. Thanks for the interest. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EaBc03bcqRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
