[Bug 961387] Review Request: akuma - Embeddable daemonization library for Java
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961387 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: akuma Short Description: Embeddable daemonization library for Java 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=iS1sOXlWjJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961392] Review Request: annotation-indexer - Jenkins annotation-indexer library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961392 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: annotation-indexer Short Description: Jenkins annotation-indexer library 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=EF38scYMdma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961398] Review Request: localizer - Type-safe localization message access for Java
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961398 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: localizer Short Description: Type-safe localization message access for Java 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=S2gW7wMaqpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096 --- Comment #4 from John Heidemann jo...@isi.edu --- Thanks for the tips in comment #3. I ran cpanspec. It had some dependencies I picked up; they'll be in Fsdb-2.39 (not yet out). But my website is the upstream, not CPAN, and it's not clear to me what the %changelog problem is (although I don't actually track changes with that since I maintain the spec and the software). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m4f6DvMlo4a=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 m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libpam4j Short Description: Java binding for libpam.so 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=EJ33z8B3Cja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960252] Review Request: perl-File-Touch - Update access, modification timestamps, creating nonexistent files
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960252
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-File-Touch.spec.old2013-05-09 15:51:15.0 +0200
+++ perl-File-Touch.spec2013-05-09 16:46:24.0 +0200
@@ -2,14 +2,13 @@
Summary: Update access, modification timestamps, creating nonexistent files
Version: 0.08
Release: 2%{?dist}
-License: ASL 2.0
+License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-Touch
BuildArch: noarch
Source:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/N/NW/NWETTERS/File-Touch-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl
-BuildRequires: perl(base)
BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
BuildRequires: perl(strict)
@@ -42,8 +41,7 @@
%changelog
* Thu May 9 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.08-2
-- Change the license to ASL 2.0.
-- Fix Source0 to point to UpstreamName-%{version}.
+- Fix Source0 to point to UpstreamName-%%{version}.
- Add the missing Build Depends.
* Mon May 6 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.08-1
TODO: Correct summary spelling (timestamps → time stamps).
Not addressed.
TODO: Rephrase description (The following Perl module allows you to → This
Perl module allows you to). Nothing follows after the sentence.
Not addressed.
FIX: Correct license tag (Touch.pm states (GPL+ or Artistic)).
-License: ASL 2.0
+License: GPL+ or Artistic
Ok.
TODO: Build-require `perl(IO::File)' (Touch.pm:11).
TODO: Build-require `perl(File::stat)' (Touch.pm:12).
TODO: Build-require `perl(Fcntl)' (Touch.pm:13).
Not addressed. Please note that this insufficiency can cause build failures in
the future.
FIX: Do not build-require `perl(base)'. It's used nowhere.
-BuildRequires: perl(base)
Ok.
TODO: You can use simple `perl' instead of `%{__perl}' macro.
Not addressed.
FIX: Escape the per-cent character in the changelog with another per-cent
character.
-- Fix Source0 to point to UpstreamName-%{version}.
+- Fix Source0 to point to UpstreamName-%%{version}.
Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-File-Touch.spec ../SRPMS/perl-File-Touch-0.08-2.fc20.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-File-Touch-0.08-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
perl-File-Touch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) timestamps - time
stamps, time-stamps, times tamps
perl-File-Touch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamps - time
stamps, time-stamps, times tamps
perl-File-Touch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) timestamps - time
stamps, time-stamps, times tamps
perl-File-Touch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamps -
time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
TODO: Correct the spelling.
Package builds in F20
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5360101). Ok.
Please consider fixing the `TODO' items before building the package.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t9W1l2CtcWa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952796] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX - Perl extension for reading Microsoft Excel 2007 files
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952796
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX.spec.old 2013-04-16 18:08:44.0 +0200
+++ perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX.spec 2013-05-09 17:07:03.0 +0200
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Summary: Perl extension for reading Microsoft Excel 2007 files
Name: perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX
Version: 0.13
-Release: 1%{?dist}
+Release: 2%{?dist}
License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/%{pkgname}/
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
Patch1:perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.13-warnings.patch
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
BuildRequires: perl(Archive::Zip) = 1.16, perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel)
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker), perl(Data::Dumper), perl(Exporter)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
@@ -31,12 +33,12 @@
chmod 644 Changes README lib/Spreadsheet/{*,*/*}.pm
%build
-%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
+perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null ';'
@@ -49,12 +51,14 @@
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/Spreadsheet/
%{_mandir}/man3/*.3pm*
%changelog
+* Thu May 09 2013 Robert Scheck rob...@fedoraproject.org 0.13-2
+- Changes to match with Fedora Packaging Guidelines (#952796)
+
* Tue Apr 16 2013 Robert Scheck rob...@fedoraproject.org 0.13-1
- Upgrade to 0.13
- Initial spec file for Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux
FIX: Build-require `perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)' (Makefile.PL:2).
FIX: Build-require `perl(Data::Dumper)' for running tests
(lib/Spreadsheet/XLSX.pm:13).
FIX: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' for running tests
(lib/Spreadsheet/XLSX/Utility2007.pm:12).
FIX: Build-require `perl(Test::More)' for running tests
(t/2_with_chart.t:1).
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker), perl(Data::Dumper), perl(Exporter)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Ok.
TODO: You can use plain `perl' instead of macro `%{__perl}'.
-%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
+perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
Ok.
TODO: You can replace `PERL_INSTALL_ROOT' with `DESTDIR' argument in
%install section.
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Ok.
TODO: You can remove explicit %defattr definition in %files sectinos.
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.13-2.fc20.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.13-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ParseExcel
- Parse Excel, Parse-excel, Paracelsus
perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
interoperability - interchangeability, invulnerability, inseparability
perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ParseExcel - Parse Excel, Parse-excel, Paracelsus
perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
interoperability - interchangeability, invulnerability, inseparability
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
FIX: Declare all the build-time dependencies.
Package builds in F20 (perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.13-2.fc20.src.rpm). Ok.
Package is good.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4hCT0eu6dwa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952796] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX - Perl extension for reading Microsoft Excel 2007 files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952796 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de --- Petr, thank you for the package review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX Short Description: Perl extension for reading Microsoft Excel 2007 files Owners: robert Branches: el5 el6 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=DBI6hhJ7Dua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 827723] Review Request: gnuhealth - The free Health and Hospital Information System
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827723 --- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com --- Can you please provide an update on this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cas1sb5QkIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961642] New: Review Request: ubuntu-font-family - The fonts used in Ubuntu Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642 Bug ID: 961642 Summary: Review Request: ubuntu-font-family - The fonts used in Ubuntu Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kpra...@gmx.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://kprasad.net/Fonts/ubuntu-font-family.spec SRPM URL: http://kprasad.net/Fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Ubuntu Font Family are a set of matching new Libre/Open fonts. The development is being funded by Canonical on behalf the wider Free Software community and the Ubuntu project. The technical font design work and implementation is being undertaken by Dalton Maag. More information at : http://font.ubuntu.com/about/ Note: This is my first build and I need a sponsor. (And I'm planning to package the fonts listed in Fonts wish-list :) ) Fedora Account System Username: kprasad Koji scratch build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5360119 Thanks, Prasad. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QqphU5oQJ2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961642] Review Request: ubuntu-font-family - The fonts used in Ubuntu Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642 K.Prasad kpra...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2RAgyPJPUBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961642] Review Request: ubuntu-font-family - The fonts used in Ubuntu Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642 --- Comment #1 from K.Prasad kpra...@gmx.com --- Adding rpmlint output : $rpmlint ../SRPMS/ubuntu-font-family-0.80-1.fc18.src.rpm ubuntu-font-family.src: W: invalid-license Ubuntu Font License, based on SIL OFL 1.1 ubuntu-font-family.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 4) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L0lLN5H19ca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949324] Review Request: oath-toolkit - One-time password components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949324 --- Comment #10 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #9) I would like to submit a review request for dynalogin, it uses liboath as a dependency. Would you like to review them together to ensure interoperability? Hi Daniel, submit the review request and set it to depend on this BZ. I can do the review, but currently there is no reviewer for the oath-toolkit. We need to handle this first. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qXDcopp0zIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924310] Review Request: mate-document-viewer - Document viewer
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924310
--- Comment #7 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
Thank you for revieving.
(In reply to comment #5)
(Disclaimer: not an official review)
%files dvi
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libdvidocument.so*
%files djvu
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libdjvudocument.so
%files xps
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libxpsdocument.so
Why the * after libdvidocument.so, but not after the others? All of the
libraries are unversioned, so removing the * will give you a heads up if
upstream decides to version those libraries.
yes, i will remove *.
%package libs
%package dvi
%package djvu
%package xps
Is there a reason to to separate the backends from the libs package? Think
of a user installing mate-document-viewer. Will they be able to view
$backendname files without installing the $backendname subpackage?
I see this is a fork of evince, and evince uses the same splitup. However,
unless there is a good reason to do so, I think keeping everything in -libs
is saner. (Just look at texlive, which has almost 1000 subpackages).
I did use the evince spec file as base if start building this package last
year, but i agree there is no reason to do this for mate-document-viewer, and
it is much user friendly.
sed -i -e
's,Categories=MATE;GTK;Graphics;VectorGraphics;Viewer;,Categories=GTK;Graphics;VectorGraphics;Viewer;,g'
data/atril.desktop.in.in data/atril.desktop.in.in
sed -i -e '/GTK;Graphics;VectorGraphics;Viewer;/ a\OnlyShowIn=MATE;'
data/atril.desktop.in.in
Small comment explaining why this is needed.
MATE hasn't a registred category in desktop-file-utils, only 'OnlyShowIn=MATE'.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44353#c2
But i fixed that already in upstream 1.6.0 version, here i started with the
1.5.x version.
I agree that m-d-w can work as standalone without MATE desktop, so i won't add
the 'OnlyShowIn=MATE entry.
%configure \
--disable-static \
--disable-scrollkeeper \
Whitespace issue. either use only tabs, or only spaces, but don't mix them
up.
Of course, i will change 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=MOzXQCRRrGa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961223] Review Request: ocrfeeder - A document layout analysis and optical character recognition system
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961223 --- Comment #9 from Joaquim Rocha jro...@redhat.com --- Hi Christopher, I'll have too look into those complaints later. I have never touched the permissions of those files and, at least from Debian's packager, I received no complains. Should these be ignored? Could you test generating an ODT file to make sure it works? If those should be ignored, is there anything else that really needs to be fixed? About the RPM, there's a package built in OpenSuse's Service here (in case you want to take a look): https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=OCRFeederproject=home%3Ajsuarezr%3AOCRFeeder Thanks a lot for packaging it for 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=0qgtxnKJJma=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 #6 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Anuj, you don't need to write programs to check it. Vit raised the issue because some gems allow you to get the version of the gem while running them e.g. something like `SomeGem::VERSION` and this could require the VERSION file, because it's the only place where the version is saved. What you need to check is therefore where and how the file is used in the source code. Nevertheless I already check that for you - this file is needed only for .gemspec file that is used when building a new gem before releasing it. And this file is not a part of a distributed .gem package. Apart from that, your srpm builds fine both in koji[1] and mock, installs and runs without any issues so I am APPROVING this package. [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5360352 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AKlDnhvYZBa=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 Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KyoDH9Vy57a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960252] Review Request: perl-File-Touch - Update access, modification timestamps, creating nonexistent files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960252 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-File-Touch Short Description: Update access, modification timestamps, creating nonexistent files Owners: averi psabata Branches: f18 f19 el6 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=CYTeVRaeIba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923136] Review Request: perl-Digest-MD5 - Perl interface to the MD5 algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923136 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrea.v...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Digest-MD5 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=hSi58muMtBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrea.v...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Data-Dumper 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=jBdSGgUS5Oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GobN7Tkinra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961405] Review Request: mingw-openjpeg - MinGW Windows OpenJPEG library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961405 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch --- (In reply to comment #3) - static libraries: from a quick glance at the buildsystem files I didn't figure out how to enable the compilation of static libraries with cmake (I'm not overly familiar with cmake I should note) Me neither, unfortunately. - tools: I'm not sure what the general rule is, many other mingw packages provide *.exe files (though usually in the main package). My idea was: keep everything that some users may find usefull for whatever reason, but put them in a separate package. I think they used to be forbidden. There's no guidance anymore, now, that I know of. So in my opinion we should use common sense. If you can think of a use of those, then fine, package them. Right now I don't see one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WQ2Iw50rOKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924310] Review Request: mate-document-viewer - Document viewer
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924310
--- Comment #8 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
(In reply to comment #6)
See sed comment, and whitespace issue above.
=
===
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
Note: desktop file(s) in mate-document-viewer
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
I did already run the review tool for my own, but why the review tool failed
here?
I use the update-desktop-database rpm scriplet because desktop file has a mime
data entry.
(EPS) files. When supported by the document format, evince allows searching
This is not evince, is it?
Opps, thank you, i will change description.
=
===
files libs
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libpdfdocument.so
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/pdfdocument.atril-backend
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libpsdocument.so
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/psdocument.atril-backend
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libtiffdocument.so
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/tiffdocument.atril-backend
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libcomicsdocument.so
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/comicsdocument.atril-backend
and later down:
%files dvi
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libdvidocument.so*
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/dvidocument.atril-backend
%files djvu
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libdjvudocument.so
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/djvudocument.atril-backend
%files xps
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/libxpsdocument.so
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/xpsdocument.atril-backend
Relating to what I asked in the previous comment:
There is no reason to separate dvi, djvu, and xps, but leave pdf, ps, and
tiff
integral. Please drop these subpackages, and simplify this to:
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/lib*document.so
%{_libdir}/atril/3/backends/*document.atril-backend
Agree.
=
===
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/atril.*
Missing Requires: hicolor-icon-them
Ohh, this is new for me, i will add the require.
%{_datadir}/MateConf/gsettings/atril.convert
Missing Requires: mate-conf
Mate-conf is obsolete. MATE is complete ported to gsettings started with 1.5.x
package versions.
After i removed mate-conf from my latest compiz packages i expected Dan Marchal
(MATE Maintainer) will obsolete mate-conf too, like he did it with other
obsolete MATE packages for f19.
In fedora MATE started with 1.5.x versions, all of them didn't use mate-conf
anymore, in result there is no user who have mate-conf settings to convert.
=
===
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mate-
document-viewer-libs
Since -libs subpackage is not really separable from the main package, you
can go
ahead and add this.
Agree, will change it
=
===
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
%{_datadir}/doc/mate/atril/atril.html
%{_datadir}/doc/mate/atril/atril_start_window.png
These look like innocent documentation. You should include them with %doc.
otherwise, you end up with both mate/ and mate-document-viewer/ in
/usr/share/doc.
So i can use
%doc README COPYING NEWS AUTHORS atril.html atril_start_window.png
Or what do you suggest? Can you explain it more detail please?
=
===
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
%{_datadir}/mate/help/atril/
$ yum provides /usr/share/mate
No Matches found
Who owns %{_datadir}/mate/ and %{_datadir}/mate/atril/ ?
%{_datadir}/mate/ should owned by mate-desktop, because this is the major and
first package in MATE. Also the build order for MATE is mate-common,
mate-doc-utils, mate-desktop and then the rest.
But i noticed it isn't.
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mate-desktop.git/tree/mate-desktop.spec
For me it looks like a issue with mate-desktop spec file.
Owning this directory with an additional (m-d-v) package is the wrong way, imo.
%{_datadir}/mate/atril/ doesn't exists, you mean %{_datadir}/mate/help/atril/
which is owned by m-d-v.
%{_libdir}/caja/extensions-2.0/libatril-properties-page.so
$ yum provides /usr/lib64/caja/
No Matches found
$ yum provides /usr/lib/caja/
No Matches found
Caja is the internal name, the package name is mate-file-manager.
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mate-file-manager.git/tree/mate-file-manager.spec
Maybe the same prob here, i think %{_libdir}/caja/extensions-2.0 should also
own %{_libdir}/caja ???
Rpmlint (installed packages)
[Bug 924310] Review Request: mate-document-viewer - Document viewer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924310 --- Comment #9 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Alex, do you have currently an open review for catching? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HYC6GNYDiJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923136] Review Request: perl-Digest-MD5 - Perl interface to the MD5 algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923136 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs- --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- The module is already shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. Please check it before requesting for EPEL branch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=p5UtzS4kv4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 756479] Review Request: perl-Socket - C socket.h defines and structure manipulators
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756479 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs- --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Already in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (perl-5.10.1-129.el6.src.rpm/perl-4:5.10.1-129.el6.x86_64). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sa5H5tYpkRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TKKr2ic57Ka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=04dYnAFxI9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952796] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX - Perl extension for reading Microsoft Excel 2007 files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952796 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QwphTrsI85a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952796] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX - Perl extension for reading Microsoft Excel 2007 files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952796 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KbDE0aRh0Ta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960252] Review Request: perl-File-Touch - Update access, modification timestamps, creating nonexistent files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960252 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PEgb9ZEIAJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960252] Review Request: perl-File-Touch - Update access, modification timestamps, creating nonexistent files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960252 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nVjAwi7Xn1a=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 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zRsL6R4ICza=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 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rpFsQnqEvja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 811239] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper - Stringify perl data structures, suitable for printing and eval
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811239 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #10 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- This module is bundled with the EL-6 perl package and *cannot* be in EPEL-6! # yum install 'perl(Data::Dumper)' Loaded plugins: rhnplugin This system is receiving updates from RHN Classic or RHN Satellite. Setting up Install Process Package 4:perl-5.10.1-131.el6_4.x86_64 already installed and latest version Nothing to do -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yCDAKwlefra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961387] Review Request: akuma - Embeddable daemonization library for Java
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961387 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pSUraJBmbRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961387] Review Request: akuma - Embeddable daemonization library for Java
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961387 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EzOQ6q0ipKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961392] Review Request: annotation-indexer - Jenkins annotation-indexer library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961392 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AaTra3cSara=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961392] Review Request: annotation-indexer - Jenkins annotation-indexer library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961392 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=357W2pYfmBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961398] Review Request: localizer - Type-safe localization message access for Java
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961398 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3Xi1RmMHffa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961398] Review Request: localizer - Type-safe localization message access for Java
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961398 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=b7mi5DPTbua=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
Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Not really an issue
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not 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 Maven mapping
[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_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not
[Bug 961786] New: Review Request: git-ftp - Git powered FTP client written as shell script
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961786 Bug ID: 961786 Summary: Review Request: git-ftp - Git powered FTP client written as shell script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/git-ftp/git-ftp.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/git-ftp/git-ftp-0.84-1.fc18.src.rpm A shell script for pushing git tracked changed files to a remote host by FTP Tested on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5360711 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iLjnjwEbeQa=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 tra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
[!]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
Requires on jpackage-utils is necessary
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in openwebbeans-
arquillian, openwebbeans-ee, openwebbeans-ee-common, openwebbeans-ejb,
openwebbeans-impl, openwebbeans-jee5-ejb-resource, openwebbeans-jms,
openwebbeans-jsf, openwebbeans-osgi, openwebbeans-resource, openwebbeans-
spi, openwebbeans-test, openwebbeans-tomcat7, openwebbeans-web
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
The dependency on main package must be in form of:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
= 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.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
openwebbeans-arquillian , openwebbeans-ee , openwebbeans-ee-common ,
openwebbeans-ejb , openwebbeans-impl , openwebbeans-jee5-ejb-resource ,
openwebbeans-jms , openwebbeans-jsf , openwebbeans-osgi , openwebbeans-
resource , openwebbeans-spi , openwebbeans-test , openwebbeans-tomcat7 ,
openwebbeans-web , openwebbeans-javadoc
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tradej/reviews/89-openwebbeans/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 307200 bytes in 30 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package
[Bug 924310] Review Request: mate-document-viewer - Document viewer
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924310
--- Comment #10 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
For the next build i change this.
%changelog
* Fri May 10 2013 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de - 1.6.0-3
- remove -dvi, -djvu, -xps subpackages and move the libs to -libs subpackage
- add Requires: %%{name}%%{?_isa} = %%{version}-%%{release} to -libs subpackage
- remove sed commands for desktop file
- add hicolor-icon-theme require
- fix last changelog date
- rename atril to mate-document-viewer in summarys and descriptions
- to avoid rpmlint warnings
- rename evince to mate-document-viewer in description
- fix mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs in spec file
But i don't know how to handle the %doc issue?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ky5pSsLJUUa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927550] Review Request: pycdf - A python interface to the Unidata netCDF library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927550 Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||josdek...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com --- pycdf seems dead upstream and has not been updated since 2007. Besides we already have a nice python to netcdf interface in fedora called netcdf4-python, which is actively maintained (and supports py3 as well). Are you sure it is useful to have this package as well in Fedora, i.e. do you have other packages in mind that depend on it? references: http://code.google.com/p/netcdf4-python/ http://pysclint.sourceforge.net/pycdf/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9FA8QJkMRXa=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
Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||socho...@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Issues:
===
...
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in
openwebbeans-
arquillian, openwebbeans-ee, openwebbeans-ee-common, openwebbeans-ejb,
openwebbeans-impl, openwebbeans-jee5-ejb-resource, openwebbeans-jms,
openwebbeans-jsf, openwebbeans-osgi, openwebbeans-resource,
openwebbeans-
spi, openwebbeans-test, openwebbeans-tomcat7, openwebbeans-web
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
The dependency on main package must be in form of:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Incorrect, this is a bug in fedora-review. %{?_isa} doesn't make sense in
noarch packages. In normal packages they resolve to either i686 or x86_64 so
that subpackages don't accidentally pull in main package from different
architecture. This is never going to happen in noarch package ergo %{?_isa}
would actually cause problems
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=grywoK3Dn8a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955913] Review Request: nsnake - Classic snake game on console
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955913 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Initial rpmlint stuff: nsnake.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/nsnake root 04755L The file is setuid; this may be dangerous, especially if this file is setuid root. Sometimes file capabilities can be used instead of setuid bits. nsnake.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/nsnake 04755L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. nsnake.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man6/nsnake.6.gz The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. nsnake.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man6/nsnake.6.gz 1: warning: macro `' not defined This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as intended. nsnake.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man6/nsnake.6.gz 5: warning: macro `--' not defined This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as intended. nsnake.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man6/nsnake.6.gz 9: warning: macro `' not defined This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as intended. nsnake.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man6/nsnake.6.gz 17: warning: macro `---' not defined This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as intended. nsnake.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man6/nsnake.6.gz 44: warning: macro `-' not defined This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as intended. nsnake.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man6/nsnake.6.gz 63: warning: macro `---' not defined This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as intended. nsnake-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. These should all be fixed. You should be able to patch out the strip during build, and there's no reason for this to be setuid. Also, you might consider running make dox and including the output in %doc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yfE17CLD2ta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955913] Review Request: nsnake - Classic snake game on console
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955913 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=voWVcTV5M8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961814] New: Review Request: jenkins-crypto-util - Jenkins crypto-util library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961814 Bug ID: 961814 Summary: Review Request: jenkins-crypto-util - Jenkins crypto-util library 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/jenkins-crypto-util.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/jenkins-crypto-util-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package provides utility wrapper around Java Crypto API. 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=9uM1wXMqOBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961814] Review Request: jenkins-crypto-util - Jenkins crypto-util library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961814 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com 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=jy9mMzcwEMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961817] New: Review Request: jenkins-extras-memory-monitor - Java library for monitoring memory/swap usage
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961817 Bug ID: 961817 Summary: Review Request: jenkins-extras-memory-monitor - Java library for monitoring memory/swap usage 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/jenkins-extras-memory-monitor.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/jenkins-extras-memory-monitor-1.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package contains a small Java library for monitoring memory/swap usage. 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=sNrgMLAGYYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961817] Review Request: jenkins-extras-memory-monitor - Java library for monitoring memory/swap usage
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961817 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com 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=TAyNu6D5zha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961819] New: Review Request: jenkins-task-reactor - Jenkins task-reactor library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961819 Bug ID: 961819 Summary: Review Request: jenkins-task-reactor - Jenkins task-reactor library 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/jenkins-task-reactor.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/jenkins-task-reactor-1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This Java library provides generic task execution and control framework which is used extensively within the Jenkins CI toolset. 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=mC2aF197m4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961819] Review Request: jenkins-task-reactor - Jenkins task-reactor library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961819 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com 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=XMSDiNBbjQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961392] Review Request: annotation-indexer - Jenkins annotation-indexer library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961392 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG), 961394 | Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-05-10 09:46:01 --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Built in Rawhide and F19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BKq1T5cONha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961394] Review Request: access-modifier-annotation - Java annotation for custom access modifiers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961394 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|961392 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=71435b78HXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961405] Review Request: mingw-openjpeg - MinGW Windows OpenJPEG library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961405 --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) - static libraries: from a quick glance at the buildsystem files I didn't figure out how to enable the compilation of static libraries with cmake (I'm not overly familiar with cmake I should note) Me neither, unfortunately. It is up to the maintainer in question to decide whether to ship static libraries or not. If the build system creates them automatically or users want it then it would make sense to ship them, otherwise just bundle the shared libraries only. It doesn't really matter (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) - tools: I'm not sure what the general rule is, many other mingw packages provide *.exe files (though usually in the main package). My idea was: keep everything that some users may find usefull for whatever reason, but put them in a separate package. I think they used to be forbidden. There's no guidance anymore, now, that I know of. So in my opinion we should use common sense. If you can think of a use of those, then fine, package them. Right now I don't see one. Almost all Fedora MinGW packages ship their executables in the main package. Right now we've got the following binary mingw RPMs which use the -tools suffix: mingw32-gvnc-tools-0.5.2-1.fc19.noarch mingw32-qt-tools-4.8.4-3.fc20.noarch mingw64-gvnc-tools-0.5.2-1.fc19.noarch mingw64-qt-tools-4.8.4-3.fc20.noarch So, for consistency with the majority of the mingw packages I would recommend to bundle executables in the main package. However, I'm open to other suggestions as well. Perhaps it would make sense to bring up this subject to the mailing list so we can come up with a more generic packaging guideline on what to do with shipping executables. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tx9q3INo1ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961405] Review Request: mingw-openjpeg - MinGW Windows OpenJPEG library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961405 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Without some significant manual workarounds I don't believe it's possible to build both static and shared libraries from a single CMake call. The Debian packager for one library I keep the CMake files for asked for that funcitonality and it took some very significant gymnastics as I had to create separate build targets (e.g. mylib and mylib-static) and then specifically alter the build name of mylib-static so it would output mylib.a. And this still runs into major problems building with MSVC as there the static mylib.lib and the export library mylib.lib will collide (as opposed to our MinGW .a and .dll.a). So, likely, you'll need to invoke configure and install twice if you want to build both dynamic and static. When I just glanced through the openJPEG code I didn't see the necessary support for building both static and dynamic in a single call. The differences in the two calls would be minimal. One would include -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON and the other -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF Otherwise, they are probably going to be identical invocations of cmake and make. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MUmPFkH8t3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961405] Review Request: mingw-openjpeg - MinGW Windows OpenJPEG library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961405 --- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/mingw-openjpeg.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/mingw-openjpeg-1.5.1-2.fc20.src.rpm * Fri May 10 2013 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com - 1.5.1-2 - Use versioned BuildRequires for mingw32/64-filesystem - Remove unused mingw_build_win32/64 macros - Use autotools instead of cmake - As far as I can tell, cmake simply does not support versioned dlls on windows. So I switched back to autotools for the time being - Tools: I've removed them (though i.e. mingw-libwebp provides the decode/encode exes in the package) - I will start a discussion on the mingw-list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=N81vDzQyAba=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 #9 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
well, so what? i must change
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
in
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
?
or there are others problems because the package is not approved?
thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cAxDcRa5UJa=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 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: native-platform Short Description: Java bindings for various native APIs Owners: gil Branches: f18 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=yQbStu2nLDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961814] Review Request: jenkins-crypto-util - Jenkins crypto-util library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961814 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- 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=u3Y6RnL0Bqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961814] Review Request: jenkins-crypto-util - Jenkins crypto-util library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961814 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=r1lgcADGGua=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 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wGjHD7hdtSa=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 #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Gkqzl0xGYra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961817] Review Request: jenkins-extras-memory-monitor - Java library for monitoring memory/swap usage
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961817 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- 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=NU0aM53bcia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961819] Review Request: jenkins-task-reactor - Jenkins task-reactor library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961819 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- 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=I4c5KjLz9ia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961814] Review Request: jenkins-crypto-util - Jenkins crypto-util library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961814
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
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
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/961814-jenkins-
crypto-util/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.
[x]: 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
[Bug 961303] Review Request: mingw-winpthreads - MinGW pthread library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961303 --- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- I think a conflicts tag is a good idea. Although I will only add it once the updated mingw-headers package is built to avoid potential breakage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=h13JBmHKX1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961817] Review Request: jenkins-extras-memory-monitor - Java library for monitoring memory/swap usage
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961817
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
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/961817-jenkins-
extras-memory-monitor/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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 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-
[Bug 961819] Review Request: jenkins-task-reactor - Jenkins task-reactor library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961819
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
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
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/961819-jenkins-task-reactor/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
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
[Bug 960771] Review Request: polkit-pkla-compat - polkit rules for compatibility with pklocalauthority
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960771 Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ | Flags||fedora-review? Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: polkit-pkla-compat Short Description: Rules for polkit to add compatibility with pklocalauthority Owners: mitr Branches: 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=A4KYqnjFrQa=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7qC0WH3rpba=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 #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- native-platform-0.3-0.2.rc2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/native-platform-0.3-0.2.rc2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VRrSBubnPua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960771] Review Request: polkit-pkla-compat - polkit rules for compatibility with pklocalauthority
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960771 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9l7aRCG5Jna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960771] Review Request: polkit-pkla-compat - polkit rules for compatibility with pklocalauthority
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960771 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qH988yVirda=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pulseview-0.1.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SrSVM9yZmsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785312] Review Request: e3 - Text editor with key bindings similar to WordStar, Emacs, pico, nedit, or vi
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785312 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=56efMUluxXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785312] Review Request: e3 - Text editor with key bindings similar to WordStar, Emacs, pico, nedit, or vi
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785312 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- e3-2.8-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e3-2.8-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cCcAnpT4kja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785312] Review Request: e3 - Text editor with key bindings similar to WordStar, Emacs, pico, nedit, or vi
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785312 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- e3-2.8-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e3-2.8-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HCXaFfJMH8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785312] Review Request: e3 - Text editor with key bindings similar to WordStar, Emacs, pico, nedit, or vi
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785312 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- e3-2.8-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e3-2.8-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LnB2Nowa1aa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785312] Review Request: e3 - Text editor with key bindings similar to WordStar, Emacs, pico, nedit, or vi
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785312 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- e3-2.8-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e3-2.8-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jcF0gqB8Bya=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 #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- native-platform-0.3-0.2.rc2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/native-platform-0.3-0.2.rc2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XWd7Jm9dRBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960771] Review Request: polkit-pkla-compat - polkit rules for compatibility with pklocalauthority
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960771 Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-05-10 12:15:55 --- Comment #10 from Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com --- Thanks! rawhide build done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7I2bAUdmcJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 #10 from Dan Williams d...@redhat.com --- Fixed all those errors, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BLznMJyO1Ca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 Dan Williams d...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Dan Williams d...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libqmi Short Description: helper library for WWAN modems implement the QMI protocol Owners: dcbw Branches: f18 f19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6ZtKvpKwwia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960771] Review Request: polkit-pkla-compat - polkit rules for compatibility with pklocalauthority
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960771 --- Comment #11 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- Miloslav Trmač email_removed changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-05-10 12:15:55 You don't need to close review bugs manually. Bodhi will do it automatically once the package hits stable. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PSDkQXAuRca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961303] Review Request: mingw-winpthreads - MinGW pthread library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961303 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 746261 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=746261action=edit licensecheck.txt Final review: = MUST items = [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. = Also see attached licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. = Conflict to be added when mingw-headers is updated = optional items = - notify upstream about incorrect FSF addresses (see licensecheck.txt) - BuildRequires can be simplified (gcc-c++ pulls in gcc and binutils) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YNMQjlRWmGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953514] Review Request: vmod-querystring - QueryString VMOD for Varnish
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953514 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Is varnish-libs-devel what you need? Or something more? If it's something more, you should consult with the varnish maintainer(s) and ask for them to expose the functions you need. Bundling varnish is not possible in a Fedora package. Yes, you would then need to rebuild this package anytime varnish updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BhPm1oXHnMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961901] New: Review Request: rubygem-origin - Simple DSL for MongoDB query generation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961901 Bug ID: 961901 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-origin - Simple DSL for MongoDB query generation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tdaw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-origin.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-origin-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Origin is a simple DSL for generating MongoDB selectors and options Fedora Account System Username: tdawson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gdEN4uZOyaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961901] Review Request: rubygem-origin - Simple DSL for MongoDB query generation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961901 --- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- RPMLINT Output: $ rpmlint rubygem-origin.spec rubygem-origin-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm rubygem-origin-1.1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-origin-doc-1.1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Dn4hQXErSza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fMDeCnuf9ya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jBVfZtMeUHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961907] New: Review Request: rubygem-moped - A MongoDB driver for Ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961907 Bug ID: 961907 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-moped - A MongoDB driver for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tdaw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-moped.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-moped-1.4.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A MongoDB driver for Ruby. Fedora Account System Username: tdawson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gVaQ5t87lta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961907] Review Request: rubygem-moped - A MongoDB driver for Ruby
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961907 --- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- RPMLINT Output: $ rpmlint rubygem-moped.spec rubygem-moped-1.4.5-1.fc20.src.rpm rubygem-moped-1.4.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-moped-doc-1.4.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7dzBvMUZMfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961912] New: Review Request: rubygem-mongoid - Elegant Persistance in Ruby for MongoDB
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961912 Bug ID: 961912 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-mongoid - Elegant Persistance in Ruby for MongoDB Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tdaw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-mongoid.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-mongoid-3.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Mongoid is an ODM (Object Document Mapper) Framework for MongoDB, written in Ruby. Fedora Account System Username: tdawson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ms9cu5IftEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961912] Review Request: rubygem-mongoid - Elegant Persistance in Ruby for MongoDB
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961912 --- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- RPMLINT OUTPUT: $ rpmlint rubygem-mongoid.spec rubygem-mongoid-3.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm rubygem-mongoid-3.1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm rubygem-mongoid-doc-3.1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dHlD8HqctZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810374] Review Request: xpl4linux - An xPLHub based on xPL framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810374 Cédric OLIVIER cedric.oliv...@free.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cedric.olivier@fr | |ee.fr) | --- Comment #3 from Cédric OLIVIER cedric.oliv...@free.fr --- Those files are now available on : Spec URL: http://cquad.eu/hg/xpl4linux/raw-file/13aecad7d3a6/SPECS/xpl4linux.spec SRPM URL: http://cquad.eu/hg/xpl4linux/raw-file/13aecad7d3a6/SRPMS/xpl4linux-1.3a-5.fc16.src.rpm This package was needed by domogik which I want to package. Now domogik included his own XPL Hub. xpl4linux is an old project without any new contribution a long time ago. Perhaps it would be better to close 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=kClFTUp14Ua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 924310] Review Request: mate-document-viewer - Document viewer
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924310
--- Comment #11 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com ---
%{_datadir}/MateConf/gsettings/atril.convert
Missing Requires: mate-conf
Mate-conf is obsolete. MATE is complete ported to gsettings started with
1.5.x package versions.
After i removed mate-conf from my latest compiz packages i expected Dan
Marchal (MATE Maintainer) will obsolete mate-conf too, like he did it with
other obsolete MATE packages for f19.
In fedora MATE started with 1.5.x versions, all of them didn't use mate-conf
anymore, in result there is no user who have mate-conf settings to convert.
Well, then why are we putting data in /usr/share/MateConf, which is owned by
mate-conf ? Someone needs to own that dir.
$ yum provides /usr/share/MateConf
mate-conf-1.4.0-21.fc18.x86_64 : MATE Desktop configuration tool
Repo: fedora
Matched from:
Filename: /usr/share/MateConf
=
===
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
%{_datadir}/doc/mate/atril/atril.html
%{_datadir}/doc/mate/atril/atril_start_window.png
These look like innocent documentation. You should include them with %doc.
otherwise, you end up with both mate/ and mate-document-viewer/ in
/usr/share/doc.
So i can use
%doc README COPYING NEWS AUTHORS atril.html atril_start_window.png
Or what do you suggest? Can you explain it more detail please?
Ok. This is more complicated. The package installer thinks that it is a good
idea to install documentaion in /usr/share/doc/. The location of the doc is
packaging territory, and upstream should not really mess with that. I would
contact them about it.
Until then, we can mess around a little bit:
in %install, add:
# move installed doc to versioned directory
mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/mate \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
then change the %files entry to:
%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/atril/atril.html
%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/atril/atril_start_window.png
=
===
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
%{_datadir}/mate/help/atril/
$ yum provides /usr/share/mate
No Matches found
Who owns %{_datadir}/mate/ and %{_datadir}/mate/atril/ ?
%{_datadir}/mate/ should owned by mate-desktop, because this is the major
and first package in MATE. Also the build order for MATE is mate-common,
mate-doc-utils, mate-desktop and then the rest.
But i noticed it isn't.
And none of those packages owns %{_datadir}/mate/. It seems mate-doc-utils is
the the first package to create this directory, but does not own it. We will
need to have a bug created against that, and set it as a blocker to this bug.
%{_libdir}/caja/extensions-2.0/libatril-properties-page.so
$ yum provides /usr/lib64/caja/
No Matches found
$ yum provides /usr/lib/caja/
No Matches found
Caja is the internal name, the package name is mate-file-manager.
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mate-file-manager.git/tree/mate-file-
manager.spec
Maybe the same prob here, i think %{_libdir}/caja/extensions-2.0 should also
own %{_libdir}/caja ???
Another bug against mate-file-manager telling them they do not own all the dirs
they create.
...
mate-document-viewer-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
I did try to fix this with
# remove unused-direct-shlib-dependency
sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool
Do you know a other solution?
I think this is just a false positive.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aswsEzJgKua=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
