[Bug 957333] Review Request: quiterss - Qt-based RSS/Atom aggregator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 --- Comment #17 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #11) > > (In reply to comment #8) > As Kevin stated, packaging it would be the best solution. But I am fine with > bundling it As this snippet will be real project (with home page, versions, SCM) - I'll create it as library. > The proposed scriptlets are: Fixed. > Well, I have found QuiteRSS and quite-rss on their project site, but not > quiterss. As I don't see any reason not using one of them, I would stick to > the guideline. From one side - both of QuiteRSS developers are Windows users. So - they don't consider letter case. Really. Some times ago they renamed Linux binary to lowercase (for my proposition) - as lowecase is ordinay in Linux world. I can ask him to make lowercase tarball, if it is so important (but they will be displeased - Windows users like CamelCase Style). From other side - Guidelines say "should match the upstream tarball or project name" - but not "... _exactly_ with their letter cases". Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/quiterss/quiterss.spec SRPM URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/quiterss/quiterss-0.12.5-3.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=D5Ddese0cx&a=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 --- Comment #2 from Palle Ravn --- I have not done that yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xYzi1jTsGQ&a=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 Gregor Tätzner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |NEW Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Gregor Tätzner --- thanks Remi, I've applied for commit access and will fix the remaining issues 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=yatwlVMHJk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958006] Review Request: zanata-common - zanata common modules
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958006
Ding-Yi Chen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dc...@redhat.com|pahu...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Ding-Yi Chen ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
- Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Note: Found : Packager: Ding-Yi Chen Found : Vendor: Red
Hat, Inc.
See: (this test has no URL)
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in zanata-
common-javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dchen/958006-zanata-
common/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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]
[Bug 923460] Review Request: libqmi - glib helper library for the Qualcomm MSM Interface (QMI) protocol
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923460
--- Comment #6 from Yanko Kaneti ---
The Source line needs an explanation or ideally a url for a new release, which
would also help get rid of the ORIG-docs cruft.
There is also some legacy leftovers - BuildRoot, %define vs %global, %defattr,
%{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m8fdmZ7fb8&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960401] New: Review Request: xssstate - A simple tool to retrieve the X screensaver state
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960401 Bug ID: 960401 Summary: Review Request: xssstate - A simple tool to retrieve the X screensaver state Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: psab...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/xssstate/xssstate.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/xssstate/xssstate-1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A simple tool to retrieve the X screensaver state. Fedora Account System Username: psabata -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QOS0Gi1bNi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258
--- Comment #3 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
Ok, next (final?) pre-review:
1. %make_install == make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
2. changelog must be in right order (freshest is on the top)
3. Koji builds are welcome
4. Please use unified section split style - or double CR or one.
5. Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net)
As you use hand-made svn snapshot - I can't check it and fedora-review can't
download sources.
From other side - main differences between 771 and original 1.3.5 tarball are
a) new test cases (that you don't need) and b) small CmakeLists.txt patch.
I propose you to use original 1.3.5 tarball and aply patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eYrS9Kiaam&a=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 #23 from Juerg Haefliger --- (In reply to comment #22) > Hi there, > > I try to build cloud-initramfs-tools-0.20-0.2.bzr85.fc18.src.rpm on Centos > 6.4 to provide resize on root partition. I built .rpm form src but when I > was install it nothing is happening. I have all dependecy installed from el6 > (cloud-init, cloud-utils, dracut, util-linux). Is there somwhere builded > .rpm package or the main question is when cloud-initramfs-tools will be in > el6 so simply do "yum install cloud-initramfs-tools" 0.20-0.2.bzr85 had a bug which prevented it from building on EPEL. Here's the link to the latest (fixed) build: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/cloud-initramfs-tools/0.20/0.3.bzr85.el6/noarch/dracut-modules-growroot-0.20-0.3.bzr85.el6.noarch.rpm It'll slowly trickle through the system and should hit testing soon. You need to rebuild the initrd after installing the package so that the tools get pulled in: $ mkinitrd /boot/initramfs-$(uname -r).img $(uname -r) To check: $ lsinitrd /boot/initramfs-$(uname -r).img | grep growroot -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fMxthUeRnP&a=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 #24 from Juerg Haefliger --- Also, this does not work if you have any LVM crazyness. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WO9ijsiH3k&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258 --- Comment #4 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to comment #3) > I propose you to use original 1.3.5 tarball and aply patch. Or to use other way (like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Troublesome_URLs) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K5EAKGZPti&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958810] Review Request: gfal2-plugin-xrootd - Provide xrootd support for GFAL2
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958810
Alejandro Alvarez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@ce
||rn.ch
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Alvarez ---
Hi,
Here is my informal review
rpmlint output
==
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
MUST
[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] Package does not use a name that already exist.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[FAIL] Changelog in prescribed format.
Only packaging related entries should appear. There are entries
related to upstream.
[OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified.
[--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the
dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[FAIL] 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.
It is manually installed under _docdir
[OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[--] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[--] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[--] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[OK] 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.
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[--] 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.
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[OK] Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] No external kernel modules
[OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
[OK] No need for external bits
[WARN] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
gfal2-devel requires glib2-devel, so this BuildRequires should
be removed.
[--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[OK] Package installs properly.
SHOULD
==
[--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment
[OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream.
[OK] No PreReq
[OK] %makeinstall is not used
[OK] Timestamp is preserved
[FAILED] Parallel make
Missing make %{?_smp_mflags} in build, or those flags in install
[--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency.
[--] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[--] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg
[OK] The package builds in mock.
[OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[OK] The package functions as described.
[--] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[--] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
[--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supporte
[Bug 744066] Review Request: vide - programmer's terminal for vim
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744066 Lukas Zapletal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) | Last Closed||2013-05-07 04:04:40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PGhVgeEkgi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924350] Review Request: mate-applet-lockkeys - MATE Keyboard LED indicator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924350 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Monnerat --- About comment 7: Yes, you finally got it :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SQkliz3K9Q&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957333] Review Request: quiterss - Qt-based RSS/Atom aggregator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 Markus Mayer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Markus Mayer --- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > (In reply to comment #11) > > > (In reply to comment #8) > > As Kevin stated, packaging it would be the best solution. But I am fine with > > bundling it > > As this snippet will be real project (with home page, versions, SCM) - I'll > create it as library. > > > The proposed scriptlets are: > > Fixed. > > > Well, I have found QuiteRSS and quite-rss on their project site, but not > > quiterss. As I don't see any reason not using one of them, I would stick to > > the guideline. > > From one side - both of QuiteRSS developers are Windows users. So - they > don't consider letter case. Really. Some times ago they renamed Linux binary > to lowercase (for my proposition) - as lowecase is ordinay in Linux world. I > can ask him to make lowercase tarball, if it is so important (but they will > be displeased - Windows users like CamelCase Style). > From other side - Guidelines say "should match the upstream tarball or > project name" - but not "... _exactly_ with their letter cases". > > Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/quiterss/quiterss.spec > SRPM URL: > http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/quiterss/quiterss-0.12.5-3.fc18.src.rpm Ok, look fine now. Finally you convinced me about the naming. (Sorry for beeing such a bullhead). This package is 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=IfSMDRimG2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957333] Review Request: quiterss - Qt-based RSS/Atom aggregator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: quiterss Short Description: Qt-based RSS/Atom aggregator Owners: tieugene Branches: f17 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=IUboacPxyS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957333] Review Request: quiterss - Qt-based RSS/Atom aggregator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 --- Comment #20 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > (In reply to comment #16) > > > (In reply to comment #11) > > > > (In reply to comment #8) > Ok, look fine now. Finally you convinced me about the naming. (Sorry for > beeing such a bullhead). This is your job - not? :-) > This package is APPROVED. Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9jWHJsTQMv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953783] Review Request: vim-taglist - The "Tag List" plugin is a source code browser plugin for Vim
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953783
--- Comment #8 from Robert Kuska ---
vim-taglist.noarch: W: invalid-license vim
vim-taglist.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/doc/taglist.txt
- little typo with license name, its Vim I guess
- you should change permissions of .txt file to 644
- you should delete the Buildroot, it is not used anymore, same applies for the
clean section and deleting the buildroot in install section [1][2]
- you should unify macro using imo, replace your mkdir with mkdir -p
%{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oJFv44qkMt&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877779] Review Request: openwebbeans - Implementation of the JSR-299 WebBeans
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=89 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Tomas Radej --- Hi. Version 1.1.8 is available, while 1.1.7 is no longer present on the server. Please update it and I will do the 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=Xw49MnAAEx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960194] Review Request: qterminal - Qt-based terminal emulator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960194 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Sandro Mani --- Ok, got nothing more to say: 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=xXzGk3ud5E&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956147] Review Request: wide-dhcpv6 - DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation client that works on PPP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147 --- Comment #6 from David Beveridge --- (In reply to comment #5) > - Why use ubuntu_release and my_release ? The idea I had was that should ubuntu release a new version with new patches you just change the ubuntu version in the spec file, do a spectools -g, grab the new source and recompile. It may not work, but it does try to keep the upstream versions in place; and allow me to make new releases of my own. > > I'm also not entirely sure how to test any of this, as my IPv6 comes in its > own special setup. In my case lot's of Virtual Machines. :-) [dave@pc2 ~]$ ifconfig | grep Ether br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 50:E5:49:6D:D4:10 br1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:54:00:F0:28:16 br2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 4E:6C:39:72:BE:A6 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 50:E5:49:6D:D4:10 virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:30:EB:F3 vnet0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:54:00:F0:28:16 vnet1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:54:00:D2:C4:4B I'm also running quagga ospf6d on my PC and the VMs to do the routing on all the test networks. I have a mikrotik router connected to the Internet which does the first PD. It offers this on the LAN and also runs a PPPoE server with DHCPv6PD. On br0(eth0) I run ISC dhclient with my new dhclient-script (see Bug 626514), so br1 has the ISC dhcpd running a redelegated smaller block, which offers PD and IA, For example, I run a F17 vm with two nics connected to br1 and br2 and this runs the dhcp6c. Then I run radvdump on br2 to see what I get. There are lots of permutations, I can build in this environment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W7ZTLvQ6bb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960194] Review Request: qterminal - Qt-based terminal emulator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960194 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qterminal Short Description: Qt-based terminal emulator. Owners: tieugene 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=0Sejs2ItLz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953783] Review Request: vim-taglist - The "Tag List" plugin is a source code browser plugin for Vim
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953783 --- Comment #9 from Petr Hracek --- New version is uploaded: Spec URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/vim-taglist/vim-taglist.spec SRPM URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/vim-taglist/vim-taglist-4.6-5.fc18.src.rpm License field, doc file and BuildRoot issue were corrected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pvkIrRt1MJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953885] Review Request: vim-jedi - awesome Python autocompletion with VIM
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953885
--- Comment #8 from Robert Kuska ---
- you forgot to delete BuildRoot:
- also please unify macro using, in install section use
%{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{vimfiles_root}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Y4LyurFfsW&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953783] Review Request: vim-taglist - The "Tag List" plugin is a source code browser plugin for Vim
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953783 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bkab...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Just a flyby comment - if deleting Buildroot: and %clean, then you should also consider removing %defattr for consistency (these three usually come together). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mtToKq1VJH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/sailcut.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/sailcut-1.3.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Argh, late night work.. 1. fixed 2. fixed 3. Here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5338611 4. Do you mean the single CR before %description and double elsewhere? If so, fixed (I'd rather keep a single CR before the BuildRequires) 5. fixed And for the snapshot issue, I've ended up using 1.3.5 + patch as you suggested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xn1i7TUDsg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877779] Review Request: openwebbeans - Implementation of the JSR-299 WebBeans
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=89 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openwebbeans.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openwebbeans-1.1.8-1.fc18.src.rpm - update to 1.1.8 - disable tomcat6 module Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5338679 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1zbirMjizv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960064] Review Request: rubygem-lumberjack - A fast logging utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960064 --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny --- * Move MIT_LICENSE file into the main package * Requiring rspec-core seems to be redundant since you are already requiring the whole rspec Otherwise the spec looks good, rpmlint doesn't complain and the package builds and runs. Please update the spec file accordingly so I can approve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GAPNYaWh1p&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960139] Review Request: rubygem-atomic - An atomic reference implementation for JRuby, Rubinius, and MRI
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960139 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Josef Stribny --- The package builds and runs, rpmlint doesn't complain and spec files looks good so I am APPROVING this 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=8SWnN4CiFk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956147] Review Request: wide-dhcpv6 - DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation client that works on PPP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #7 from David Beveridge ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> - For make, at least use: make %{?_smp_mflags}
When I do that or -j3, I get the following...
bison -y -d cfparse.y
bison -y -d cfparse.y
mv y.tab.c cfparse.c
gcc -c ./missing/strlcpy.c
mv y.tab.c cfparse.c
mv: cannot stat 'y.tab.c': No such file or directory
make: *** [y.tab.h] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.UX9BZk (%build)
Works with -j2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gdSxKeI9p0&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953885] Review Request: vim-jedi - awesome Python autocompletion with VIM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953885 --- Comment #9 from Petr Hracek --- Macro's are unify. BuildRoot field is deleted Spec URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/vim-jedi/vim-jedi.spec SRPM URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/vim-jedi/vim-jedi-0.5.0-5.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=L3vt6ZKFCV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960515] New: Review Request: perl-WWW-Shorten - Perl interface to URL shortening sites
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960515 Bug ID: 960515 Summary: Review Request: perl-WWW-Shorten - Perl interface to URL shortening sites Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: andrea.v...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/perl-WWW-Shorten/WWW-Shorten.spec SRPM URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/perl-WWW-Shorten/perl-WWW-Shorten-3.03-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This package provides the Perl module WWW-Shorten, which is a Perl interface to URL shortening sites. Fedora Account System Username: averi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=b9s9S8Wmjg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960401] Review Request: xssstate - A simple tool to retrieve the X screensaver state
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960401 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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=GNSdaS3rWs&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- Approved. Notes: 1. W: spelling-error %description -l en_US visualise -> visualize, visual 2. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)" I recomend you to make total replacement (find+sed) of wrong FSF address with correct: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/. And check with "licensecheck -r *" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=k7Mb9ITrEm&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258 --- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/sailcut.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/sailcut-1.3.5-2.fc20.src.rpm Spelling and licenses fixed. Thanks for the 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=KBHdoM5z1N&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sailcut Short Description: A sail design and plotting software Owners: smani Branches: 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=dYlf2q6cVw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Scheme Interpreter (Replacement for plt-scheme)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #21 from Ricky Elrod --- Robert: Thanks for the info. Yeah, depending on what I hear in the next few days from other people in this ticket, I might take a stab at this. I think it would be nice to have Racket in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rYRM2ggXZH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960532] New: Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960532 Bug ID: 960532 Summary: Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/metainf-services.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/metainf-services-1.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package contains small Java library which can be used for automatic generation of META-INF/services files. Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KWBnBW54aS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960532] Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960532 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LCTFZqCsVh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960533] New: Review Request: libpam4j - Java binding for libpam.so
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960533 Bug ID: 960533 Summary: Review Request: libpam4j - Java binding for libpam.so Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/libpam4j.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/libpam4j-1.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package provides Java binding for libpam library. Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8OxRdkVEVe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960533] Review Request: libpam4j - Java binding for libpam.so
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960533 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=h3dC04XDrR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725776] Review Request: perl-IRC-Utils - Common utilities for IRC-related tasks
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725776 Andrea Veri changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrea.v...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Andrea Veri --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-IRC-Utils New Branches: el6 Owners: averi psabata InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Z9vnA92DOQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960536] New: Review Request: kohsuke-pom - Kohsuke parent POM file
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960536 Bug ID: 960536 Summary: Review Request: kohsuke-pom - Kohsuke parent POM file Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/kohsuke-pom.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/kohsuke-pom-5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package contains Kohsuke parent POM file. Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LgCA5wK6PL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960536] Review Request: kohsuke-pom - Kohsuke parent POM file
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960536 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG), 960533 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pcayWTUHtS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960533] Review Request: libpam4j - Java binding for libpam.so
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960533 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||960536 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lQHZqmi4pP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960401] Review Request: xssstate - A simple tool to retrieve the X screensaver state
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960401
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ---
URL and Source0 are usable. Ok.
Source tar ball is original (SHA-256:
e5b60a6e48133944ef6f3c2e0b7bd40e0d84d2d97ed9790c85c382bc1998bf04). Ok.
License is Ok.
Summary and description is good.
TODO: There are two bugs in the source:
printf("%ld\n", info->til_or_since);
printf("%ld\n", info->idle);
Both variables are of type unsigned long, but the formatting strings are %ld.
See for XScreenSaverInfo type definitions.
$ rpmlint xssstate.spec ../SRPMS/xssstate-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/xssstate-*
xssstate.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screensaver -> screen saver,
screen-saver, screens aver
xssstate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screensaver -> screen
saver, screen-saver, screens aver
xssstate.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) screensaver -> screen saver,
screen-saver, screens aver
xssstate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US screensaver -> screen
saver, screen-saver, screens aver
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
TODO: Consider spelling `screensaver' with a hyphen or a space.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/xssstate-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot11368 May 7 12:49
/usr/bin/xssstate
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 7 12:49
/usr/share/doc/xssstate-1.0
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1138 Feb 1 13:10
/usr/share/doc/xssstate-1.0/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 784 Feb 1 13:10
/usr/share/doc/xssstate-1.0/README
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 360 Feb 1 13:10
/usr/share/doc/xssstate-1.0/xsidle.sh
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 443 May 7 12:49
/usr/share/man/man1/xssstate.1.gz
File layout and permissions are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/xssstate-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm | sort
/bin/sh
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXss.so.1()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
FIX: Do not scan documentation for dependencies (/bin/sh).
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/xssstate-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm | sort
xssstate = 1.0-1.fc20
xssstate(x86-64) = 1.0-1.fc20
Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/xssstate-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.
Package builds in F20
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5338920). Ok.
Otherwise the package is line with Fedora packaging guidelines.
Please correct all `FIX' issues, consider fixing `TODO' items, and provide new
spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT 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=pePnsCmTct&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960532] Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960532 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- would like to take this 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=fHyUjI22mA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960533] Review Request: libpam4j - Java binding for libpam.so
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960533 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- would like to take this 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=rp4Gcy2air&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960536] Review Request: kohsuke-pom - Kohsuke parent POM file
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960536 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- would like to take this 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=4NcwklNfFQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960061] Review Request: rubygem-guard - Guard gives notifications about file modifications
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960061
Josef Stribny changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||853781
--- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny ---
* dependencies
rubygem-listen > 1.0.0 is not yet packaged for Fedora [1],
I added corresponding "depends on"
* licensing
LICENSE file should be included in the main package
* %doc
README.md and CHANGELOG.md could be marked as %doc
* man pages
/man doesn't contain any executables so the content shouldn't be in the main
package. I also think that since man page is included, it should be installed
to a system man path so the user can really type "man guard" to see the
manual.
I suggest installing the man page as %{_mandir}/man1/guard.1 to %{buildroot}
and put the .html version to the %doc subpackage.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853781
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Gtg7aTlTh2&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 Andrea Veri changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrea.v...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Andrea Veri --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator New Branches: el6 Owners: averi psabata InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xjeObMg6jO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960061] Review Request: rubygem-guard - Guard gives notifications about file modifications
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960061 --- Comment #4 from Josef Stribny --- And I forgot: * tests Please run the test suite [1] in %check [1] https://github.com/guard/guard/tree/master/spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6x3WrJBYTd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960532] Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960532
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
IGNORE
- Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: No add_maven_depmap calls found but pom files present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro
IGNORE
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
= 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.
[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:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/960532-metainf-services/licensecheck.txt
metainf-services-metainf-services-1.5/src/main/java/org/kohsuke/metainf_services/AnnotationProcessorImpl.java
[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 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]: 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.
Java:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(pos
[Bug 905396] Review Request: rubygem-vagrant - Provisioning and deployment of virtual instances
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905396 Ricky Elrod changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||960554, 909190 --- Comment #3 from Ricky Elrod --- I've pinged (or created) bugs for some of the missing deps you mentioned, and updated the blockers listed for this bug. I'd be happy to review this, once the deps are met. I will try to review rubygem-log4r later this week to move this along some. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kiSmXTotfn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960142] Review Request: rubygem-faker - Easily generate fake data
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960142 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jstri...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jstri...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Josef Stribny --- I will take it for a 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=Yj2Bnq6I1F&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960559] New: Review Request: robust-http-client - Small Java library that performs HTTP download with automatic retry
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960559 Bug ID: 960559 Summary: Review Request: robust-http-client - Small Java library that performs HTTP download with automatic retry Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/robust-http-client.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/robust-http-client-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: robust-http-client is a small Java library which can be used for performing HTTP downloads with automatic retry. Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=okx8tlHReC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960559] Review Request: robust-http-client - Small Java library that performs HTTP download with automatic retry
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960559 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aN2wbneKbd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960536] Review Request: kohsuke-pom - Kohsuke parent POM file
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960536
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
IGNORE
- Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: No add_maven_depmap calls found but pom files present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro
IGNORE
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found.
Please check the source files for licenses manually.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
IGNORE
= 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.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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]: 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.
Java:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update
[Bug 960559] Review Request: robust-http-client - Small Java library that performs HTTP download with automatic retry
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960559 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- would like to take this 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=9O6EOZtdSu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960142] Review Request: rubygem-faker - Easily generate fake data
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960142
--- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny ---
* run tests properly
Currently no tests are being run.
Including rubygem(i18n) as a BuildDependency should make them run.
* comments
Why is `BuildRequires: rubygem(yaml)` and `ruby -Ilib:test ...` commented
out?
Either make useful comments or delete them.
* license
%doc %{gem_instdir}/License.txt should be in the main package.
* rpmlint
You should have %%gem_dir instead of %gem_dir in the comment so the macro
won't expand.
Please run the test suite with rubygem-i18n and fix the spec.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LebfJ66Wer&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960559] Review Request: robust-http-client - Small Java library that performs HTTP download with automatic retry
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960559
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
IGNORE
- Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: No add_maven_depmap calls found but pom files present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro
IGNORE
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
= 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.
[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:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/960559-robust-http-
client/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.
[-]: 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 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]: 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.
Java:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]:
[Bug 960532] Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960532 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb --- Thanks for the review. regarding license, I have no idea why licensecheck identifies MIT license as "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", but according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses short name for "MIT license (also X11)" is MIT, so I would say this shouldn't be a problem. Thanks again. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: metainf-services Short Description: Java library for generating META-INF/services files Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk tradej Branches: f19 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CN6Kst666x&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 886846] Review Request: native-platform - Java bindings for various native APIs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886846 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/native-platform.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/native-platform-0.3-0.1.rc2.fc18.src.rpm - update to 0.3-rc-2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EZ2Nzuu9au&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Scheme Interpreter (Replacement for plt-scheme)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #22 from Robert Knight --- So, that Racket that I built in January was 5.3.1. I downloaded the 5.3.3, changed my hacked spec file (I started with Daniel's) and tried again on Fedora 18. And, again, it built without trouble. To run it, I have had to put links in /usr/lib64 to the /usr/lib racket so's, but it does build and start with that change. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QUfEtNwIxw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877039] Review Request: rubygem-turbolinks - Turbolinks makes following links in your web application faster
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877039 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-05-07 08:21:46 -- 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=sFvsQtjuPJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #6 from Joseph Marrero --- I will upload my package in a week or so, I am in my finals got no time right now. But I am still interested in completing this. Sorry for the delay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CKyt9wcJFO&a=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 #23 from Joseph Marrero --- thanks Remi, I unpushed the updates as soon as you posted the comments. Gregor, thanks I am in middle of finals I can not work on this until the 15th of May. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K9CI2SVANP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960536] Review Request: kohsuke-pom - Kohsuke parent POM file
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960536 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb --- Thanks for the review, I will ask upstream if it would be possible to add license text(s) to the repository. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kohsuke-pom Short Description: Kohsuke parent POM file Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk tradej Branches: f19 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2ep7HT5iit&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960559] Review Request: robust-http-client - Small Java library that performs HTTP download with automatic retry
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960559 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb --- Thanks for the review, I will ask upstream if it would be possible to add license text(s) to the repository. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: robust-http-client Short Description: Small Java library that performs HTTP download with automatic retry Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk tradej Branches: f19 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2CWOa1SXiX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725776] Review Request: perl-IRC-Utils - Common utilities for IRC-related tasks
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725776 Jon Ciesla 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=v7B5IG1mCR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 725776] Review Request: perl-IRC-Utils - Common utilities for IRC-related tasks
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725776 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=lII34u49OR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 Jon Ciesla 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=GUCAUXya1N&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 727559] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Syndicator - POE component base class which implements the Observer pattern
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727559 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=5i1Sdq54VM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865979] Review Request: sigrok-cli - command-line interface to sigrok libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865979 Jon Ciesla 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=gfUrjqjnKK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865979] Review Request: sigrok-cli - command-line interface to sigrok libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865979 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=nVarP8Xkhw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 903380] Review Request: libint2 - A library for efficient evaluation of electron repulsion integrals
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=903380 Jon Ciesla 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=srrblGbkSf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 903380] Review Request: libint2 - A library for efficient evaluation of electron repulsion integrals
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=903380 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=itZxuFTle0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909797] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain - Sphinx domain for documenting HTTP APIs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909797 Jon Ciesla 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=rRlcEphH2S&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 909797] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain - Sphinx domain for documenting HTTP APIs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909797 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=wOoMOicqH1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920844] Review Request: gnome-robots - GNOME Robots game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920844 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Clearing flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pbDHNxLvTi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920844] Review Request: gnome-robots - GNOME Robots game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920844 Jon Ciesla 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=nvRPm36XV2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920849] Review Request: gnome-nibbles - GNOME Nibbles game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920849 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Clearing flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vcI5V1kArZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920849] Review Request: gnome-nibbles - GNOME Nibbles game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920849 Jon Ciesla 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=MzJoTDzgJc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920856] Review Request: five-or-more - GNOME five-or-more game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920856 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Clearing flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zHTyrDs8kr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920856] Review Request: five-or-more - GNOME five-or-more game
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920856 Jon Ciesla 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=mq5eWbj9JR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953701] Review Request: python-webm - Python wrapper to WebM libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953701 Jon Ciesla 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=tqIiwFou8k&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953701] Review Request: python-webm - Python wrapper to WebM libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953701 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=iBneDcsvA8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957333] Review Request: quiterss - Qt-based RSS/Atom aggregator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 Jon Ciesla 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=JSi436gUvv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957333] Review Request: quiterss - Qt-based RSS/Atom aggregator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=yZ0ur1GTq9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959720] Review Request: pulseview - Signal acquisition and analysis GUI for sigrok
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959720 Jon Ciesla 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=MWBYjDNNf2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959720] Review Request: pulseview - Signal acquisition and analysis GUI for sigrok
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959720 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=Wwsn3EZOez&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959734] Review Request: sigrok-firmware - Firmware for some hardware supported by sigrok
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959734 Jon Ciesla 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=uFBZUsZgr1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959734] Review Request: sigrok-firmware - Firmware for some hardware supported by sigrok
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959734 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=u60HQcqBhb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960194] Review Request: qterminal - Qt-based terminal emulator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960194 Jon Ciesla 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=BHEA9RgGKo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960194] Review Request: qterminal - Qt-based terminal emulator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960194 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=XBvYlsSdrB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258 Jon Ciesla 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=QUJurJKOBI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960258] Review Request: sailcut - A sail design and plotting software
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960258 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=eTsbGEDtBr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960532] Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960532 Jon Ciesla 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=ENovaldnGC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960532] Review Request: metainf-services - java library for generating META-INF/services files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960532 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=5dEBdxO73x&a=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 #24 from Jon Ciesla --- Unsetting flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=INH7sOoxyy&a=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 Jon Ciesla 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=RzeOu88KmC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
