[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- mock-build fails: Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.HSEZuG + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf ascii-design-1.0.1 + /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/ascii-design-1.0.1.tar.bz2 + /usr/bin/tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd ascii-design-1.0.1 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + dos2unix COPYING.TXT /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.HSEZuG: line 37: dos2unix: command not found RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.HSEZuG (%prep) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.HSEZuG (%prep) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. -- BuildRequires: dos2unix As Mario stated in #2 remove Requires: qt, please. and: rpmlint 959029-ascii-design/srpm/ascii-design* ascii-design.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US figlet - filet, fillet, piglet // ignored ascii-design.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) 959029-ascii-design/srpm/ascii-design.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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=CqwzdUAmeoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963265] Review Request: freecode-submit - A tool help submit release information to freecode.com
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963265
Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
There is no need for Requires: Python in spec-file:
rpm -qpR 963265-freecode-submit/results/freecode-submit-2.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
/usr/bin/python -- auto-gen by rpmbuild
python -- from spec-file
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
You can skip the `make all` target in spec, just invoking `xmlto html-nochunks
%{name}.xml` is enough:
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.7UNe2z
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd freecode-submit-2.5
+ make -- does nothing
make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
+ make freecode-submit.html
xmlto html-nochunks freecode-submit.xml
+ exit 0
Rpmlint
---
Checking: freecode-submit-2.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -
meta data, meta-data, metatarsi
freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freshmeat -
fresh meat, fresh-meat, refreshment
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint freecode-submit
freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -
meta data, meta-data, metatarsal
freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freshmeat -
fresh meat, fresh-meat, refreshment
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint -- ignored
Please fix, I'll take another try then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uWgTX0ptSha=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963265] Review Request: freecode-submit - A tool help submit release information to freecode.com
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963265 --- Comment #2 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- just forgot: License: BSD -- shoud be -- License: BSD with advertising -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=T3TTwnZH7qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963265] Review Request: freecode-submit - A tool help submit release information to freecode.com
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963265
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #1)
There is no need for Requires: Python in spec-file:
Fixed.
You can skip the `make all` target in spec, just invoking `xmlto
html-nochunks %{name}.xml` is enough:
Fixed.(Oh...damn..)
For the licensing problem, please wait, I'll ask FE-LEGAL.
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/freecode-submit.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dpxxdN4geaa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: liblfc - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
possible name-collision:
Consider asking upstream having the lib renamed, eg. liblemkefc or
liblemke-base (since it is the baselib for all FOSS on lemke-it.com...)
Aha..In fact upstream has changed the name to liblfcbase(How can you guess it!)
rpmlint (for srpm):
liblfc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lemke - Lepke, Lemme // ignored
liblfc.src:46: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/*.so.*
liblfc.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/*.so
liblfc.src:22: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 22)
liblfc.src: W: file-size-mismatch lfc-1.5.2.tar.gz = 1032882,
http://www.lemke-it.com/lfc-1.5.2.tar.gz = 1032866 (!?!)
mock-build exhibits error (as promised by rpmlint):
File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/liblfc-1.5.2-1.fc20.x86_64/usr/lib/*.so.*
in spec-file:
%files
%doc COPYING
/usr/lib/*.so.* -- why you not use %{_libdir}/*.so.* ???
same goes for -devel.
I know these problems at all. In fact Upstream has released at least 10 version
recently just because of this review. Prior to that upstream doesn't use Linux
to develope the program, as a result many things thorny has happened. So I stop
revising the spec until coming to stable.
These problems will be fixed later(upstream just released a new version 30
minutes ago...)
Consider adding samples/*.cc to -devel %doc to give a basic idea how this
lib can be useful.
Maybe.
BTW: Upstream sources does not provide a way to create some useful docs
(e.g. using doxygen). How shall one make use of this lib, if you don't know
how to use without studying sources???
These libs are not for study in fact. Just a base classes for lemke products
like cego or etc...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FFS3T3krA7a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963265] Review Request: freecode-submit - A tool help submit release information to freecode.com
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963265 --- Comment #4 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- There's no licensing problem. Actually `BSD with advertising` is a good license: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses It was just about which type of BSD-license is really used. Will review again, then... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=611WG2scYOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #3) Hey, Unfortunately, I forgot to upload the latest spec. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/ascii-design.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/ascii-design-1.0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=liMyLPGNx2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963265] Review Request: freecode-submit - A tool help submit release information to freecode.com
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963265
Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Here we go:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. -
BSD -- BSD with advertising | fix this in SCM, then!
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 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]: 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).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Uses parallel make. // only one file is processed during build, parallel
make has no benefit.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
[Bug 959974] Review Request: liblfc - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Time to be reviewd! Spec URL: http://cicku.me/liblfc.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/liblfc-1.5.4-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=epTEPAQXbpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963265] Review Request: freecode-submit - A tool help submit release information to freecode.com
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963265 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: freecode-submit Short Description: A tool help submit release information to freecode.com Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tzx0sBgLqua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960041] Review Request: liblfc-xml - Lemke Foundation Classes XML extension
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960041 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- New upstream release: Spec URL: http://cicku.me/liblfc-xml.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/liblfc-xml-1.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cnpgyv11V1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962189] Review Request: cego - A relational and transactional database
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962189 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- New upstream release with several huge rewrite: Spec URL: http://cicku.me/cego.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/cego-2.18.3-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xoDZmXOBava=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: liblfc - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #6 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Since my last comment wasn't mailed: please fix as seen in #5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=o3yurId7Iza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: liblfc -|Review Request: lfcbase - |Lemke Foundation Classes|Lemke Foundation Classes --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- So, that's why I don't want to include such samples into %doc...I will not include them now. For the name, as it has changed, I think I should change, too. I'll adopt your suggestion. For the compile warnings, please ignore them currently. Maybe a patch later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XabOQYyFyea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/lfcbase.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/lfcbase-1.5.4-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gVHq1KQUoWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960041] Review Request: lfcxml - Lemke Foundation Classes XML extension
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960041 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: liblfc-xml |Review Request: lfcxml - |- Lemke Foundation Classes |Lemke Foundation Classes |XML extension |XML extension --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Renamed: Spec URL: http://cicku.me/lfcxml.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/lfcxml-1.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=emyHtnDQVEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@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=dep4Guxh3fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974
--- Comment #9 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
that's why I don't want to include such samples into %doc...I will not
include them now.
%install
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';'
+ install -m0755 -d %{buildroot}/%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples
+ install -pm0644 samples/*.cc
%{buildroot}/%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples
snip
%files devel
- %doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README samples/
+ %doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README
+ %doc %{buildroot}/%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples
%{_includedir}/%{oname}/*
%{_libdir}/*.so
Should do the trick... ;)
For the compile warnings, please ignore them currently. Maybe a patch later.
as i said -- not critical
I'll start another review, then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2gTwViY5y3a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Quick look into spec:
1) As I've said before, keep it readable...Orders;No empty line between group
tag and summary tag in subpackages
2)Too many %global, just use %{name} with libyui-bindings, why not?
Fix the BR by remove %global libyui_devel_version %{libname}-devel = 3.0.3
with BuildRequires: libyui-devel = 3.0.3.
BTW is = 3.0.3 really required?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VWabmfHuLZa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877275] Review Request: lhapdf - Les Houches Accord PDF Interface
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877275 --- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- New upstream version: Spec URL: http://grid.tsl.uu.se/review/lhapdf.spec SRPM URL: http://grid.tsl.uu.se/review/lhapdf-5.8.9-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GMcQfu75uSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877607] Review Request: pythia8 - Pythia Event Generator for High Energy Physics
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877607 --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- New upstream version: Spec URL: http://grid.tsl.uu.se/review/pythia8.spec SRPM URL: http://grid.tsl.uu.se/review/pythia8-8.1.76-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E9Hqs5b129a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912681] Review Request: canl-java - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for Java
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912681 --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- New upstream version: Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/canl-java.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/canl-java-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fo0z7yjFhBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962581] Review Request: arm-boot-config - ARM boot configuration generator for uboot
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962581 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-05-18 05:09:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QlqIDiNorja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974
--- Comment #10 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Just forgot:
As these lib will be used by a database-daemon (cego - A relational and
transactional database #962189, I suppose) build should go hardened:
%global _hardened_build 1
As this package builds/ships a lib, only. I'd suggest prefixing lib
(lib%{name}). This should go fine with the naming-guidelines.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BiS79aMKqva=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339
--- Comment #3 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/pkg/libyui-bindings/libyui-bindings.spec
SRPM URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/pkg/libyui-bindings/libyui-bindings-1.0.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
1) As I've said before, keep it readable...Orders;No empty line between group
tag and summary tag in subpackages
Fix the BR by remove %global libyui_devel_version %{libname}-devel = 3.0.3
with BuildRequires: libyui-devel = 3.0.3.
fixed
BTW is = 3.0.3 really required?
Nope. Just took that in during cp from other libyui*.spec
2)Too many %global, just use %{name} with libyui-bindings, why not?
It's just two %global (libsuffix = yui and libname = lib%{libsuffix}) besides
the obligatory %commit and %shortcommit
(lib)yui is used rather often inside the spec. I think spec-file should be easy
adoptable for other similar purpose, without doing lots of search-replace, just
changing libsuffix to what's needed, then.
BTW: In the other libyui*-spec I have similar %global..., so I want keep this
consistent.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fXEX8ZjPYga=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964412] New: Review Request: php-tcpdf - PHP class for generating PDF documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964412 Bug ID: 964412 Summary: Review Request: php-tcpdf - PHP class for generating PDF documents Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/75541d091483f7d1f8ddca56bdbcb2b1139bb28f/php/php-tcpdf/php-tcpdf.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-tcpdf-6.0.017-2.remi.src.rpm Description: PHP class for generating PDF documents. * no external libraries are required for the basic functions; * all standard page formats, custom page formats, custom margins and units of measure; * UTF-8 Unicode and Right-To-Left languages; * TrueTypeUnicode, OpenTypeUnicode, TrueType, OpenType, Type1 and CID-0 fonts; * font subsetting; * methods to publish some XHTML + CSS code, Javascript and Forms; * images, graphic (geometric figures) and transformation methods; * supports JPEG, PNG and SVG images natively, all images supported by GD (GD, GD2, GD2PART, GIF, JPEG, PNG, BMP, XBM, XPM) and all images supported via ImagMagick (http: www.imagemagick.org/www/formats.html) * 1D and 2D barcodes: CODE 39, ANSI MH10.8M-1983, USD-3, 3 of 9, CODE 93, USS-93, Standard 2 of 5, Interleaved 2 of 5, CODE 128 A/B/C, 2 and 5 Digits UPC-Based Extention, EAN 8, EAN 13, UPC-A, UPC-E, MSI, POSTNET, PLANET, RMS4CC (Royal Mail 4-state Customer Code), CBC (Customer Bar Code), KIX (Klant index - Customer index), Intelligent Mail Barcode, Onecode, USPS-B-3200, CODABAR, CODE 11, PHARMACODE, PHARMACODE TWO-TRACKS, Datamatrix ECC200, QR-Code, PDF417; * ICC Color Profiles, Grayscale, RGB, CMYK, Spot Colors and Transparencies; * automatic page header and footer management; * document encryption up to 256 bit and digital signature certifications; * transactions to UNDO commands; * PDF annotations, including links, text and file attachments; * text rendering modes (fill, stroke and clipping); * multiple columns mode; * no-write page regions; * bookmarks and table of content; * text hyphenation; * text stretching and spacing (tracking/kerning); * automatic page break, line break and text alignments including justification; * automatic page numbering and page groups; * move and delete pages; * page compression (requires php-zlib extension); * XOBject templates; * PDF/A-1b (ISO 19005-1:2005) support. By default, TCPDF uses the GD library which is know as slower than ImageMagick solution. You can optionally install php-pecl-imagick; TCPDF will use it. Fedora Account System Username: remi Will ba available for various web applications : GLPI 0.85, phpMyAdmin 4.0, Moodle, ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=B9aIa6awKva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Just forgot:
As these lib will be used by a database-daemon (cego - A relational and
transactional database #962189, I suppose) build should go hardened:
%global _hardened_build 1
I'm not sured about this if the program running will be affected. Build seems
OK.
As this package builds/ships a lib, only. I'd suggest prefixing lib
(lib%{name}). This should go fine with the naming-guidelines.
I don't want to change it again, just keep the current one is OK.
samples have been readded.
BTW I've add check section.
NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/lfcbase.spec
NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/lfcbase-1.5.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dgbcEtRxyJa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964412] Review Request: php-tcpdf - PHP class for generating PDF documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964412 Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jo...@x-tnd.be Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jo...@x-tnd.be 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=MgnVhMrYi6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- SPEC seems not changed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RjwOPNdog3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911111] Review Request: php-pecl-zendopcache - The Zend OPcache
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=91 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-05-18 05:51:53 --- Comment #13 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Avaiable in F17, F18 and EPEL-6 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=ZZe6IzO4DJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 --- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Ups! synced before saving the modded spec... Try again, now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mhxakj9Yhca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #5) Ups! synced before saving the modded spec... Try again, now. What did you change? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9ifKhvgisca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #12 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- %global _hardened_build 1 I'm not sured about this if the program running will be affected. Build seems OK. Have a look at these: http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2011/11/03/position-independent-code-pic-in-shared-libraries/ http://www.exploit-db.com/papers/13233/ [quote] This paper is about the LD_PRELOAD feature, and how it can be useful for reverse engineering dynamically linked executables. This technique allows you to hijack functions/inject code and manipulate the application flow. [/quote] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZS2eDj07YQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339
--- Comment #7 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
changes in spec:
* order of spec-tags (URL,Source,Group,etc)
* no empty line between group tag and summary tag in subpackages
* remove %global libyui_devel_version %{libname}-devel = 3.0.3
* changed BuildRequires: %{libyui_devel_version} -- BuildRequires:
%{libname}-devel = 3.0.3
* remove = 3.0.3 on BuildRequires
* now it reads: BuildRequires: %{libname}-devel
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sIkD7oIcR2a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #7) But http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/pkg/libyui-bindings/libyui-bindings.spec doesn't change anything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3MkUNx3Z6ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029
Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Just one litte thing:
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
BuildRequires: dos2unix
- Requires: figlet
+ Requires: figlet%{?_isa}
%description
fix this in SCM, please.
rest is fine:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
Note: desktop file(s) in ascii-design
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
= 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). --- figlet --
should be figlet%{?_isa} // fix this in SCM !
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #12) So anythings still need to be changed? Have you checked my latest version? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZVKnJP7Im4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I don't understand why I should add %{?_isa}?
Any explanation?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=D6qMd2L9x1a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 --- Comment #9 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- The problem was that needed to re-gen srpm from changed spec... Synced. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NUIoPjapjia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #14 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- I was busy on #959029: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts So next run will go here... ... post lunch. ;D -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TkhUq3GPgia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029
--- Comment #7 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
figlet is an arch-dependend package. %{?_isa} makes sure the dependency will
eval to the correct-arch, so there will be no mess-up on multi-arch.
Currently Requires are:
ascii-design (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
figlet
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
...
So if you habe figlet.i686 installed on x86_64, dependency will be met for
yum/rpm, but this is not what you usually desire and may/will result in
unexpected behaviour or maybe crash...
if you change Requires: figlet -- figlet%{?_isa}
Requires of build-rpm will be:
ascii-design (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
figlet(64bit)
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
...
So this makes sure dependency is the same arch the rpm was build for and things
will go fine for sure.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GXeJregRzKa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
But if like you said, should we add %{?_isa} to all deps(without noarch
packages) because of such silly habit?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tzo133koyNa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Alright. 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=Ld76wDatMca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955804] Review Request: nzbget - Command-line based binary newsgrabber for nzb files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955804 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5394833 $ rpmlint -i -v * nzbget.src: I: checking nzbget.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) newsgrabber - news grabber, news-grabber, grabber The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nzb - nib, nab, nob The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newsgrabber - news grabber, news-grabber, grabber The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nzb - nib, nab, nob The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.src: I: checking-url http://nzbget.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) nzbget.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/nzbget/nzbget-stable/10.2/nzbget-10.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) nzbget.i686: I: checking nzbget.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) newsgrabber - news grabber, news-grabber, grabber The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nzb - nib, nab, nob The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newsgrabber - news grabber, news-grabber, grabber The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nzb - nib, nab, nob The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.i686: I: checking-url http://nzbget.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) nzbget.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/nzbget-10.2/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. nzbget.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nzbget Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. nzbget.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nzbgetd Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. nzbget.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nzbget-postprocess.sh Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. nzbget.x86_64: I: checking nzbget.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) newsgrabber - news grabber, news-grabber, grabber The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nzb - nib, nab, nob The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newsgrabber - news grabber, news-grabber, grabber The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nzb - nib, nab, nob The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. nzbget.x86_64: I: checking-url http://nzbget.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) nzbget.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/nzbget-10.2/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. nzbget.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nzbget Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. nzbget.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nzbgetd Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. nzbget.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nzbget-postprocess.sh Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. nzbget-debuginfo.i686: I: checking nzbget-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://nzbget.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) nzbget-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking nzbget-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://nzbget.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds) nzbget.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/nzbget/nzbget-stable/10.2/nzbget-10.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 18 warnings. Nothing of interest anymore which would block the review. However, you should inform the upstream folks about the outdated FSF address. - key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work - [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
[Bug 960200] Review Request: libyui-qt - Qt User Interface for libyui
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960200
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
* Nothing here that hasn't been addressed before via the other libyui package
reviews.
* It's spelled Qt though not qt, and that will also please rpmlint. ;-)
Summary: qt User Interface for %{libname}
%description
This package contains the qt user interface component for %{libname}.
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=0ucmMixk2Ca=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029 --- Comment #9 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- This only needed in the explicitly named Requires, if they are arch-dependend. Auto-Requires from rpmbuild do respect _isa on their own. On BuildRequires you must NOT use _isa-macro, because BuildRequires will become Requires of SRPM and so build is performed against the arch which was used to generate SRPM or possibly will fail... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QEcSg6gh9Aa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- It won't build for F19 and newer, because libgraph is no more: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1971 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZLWiyWf7T8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804125
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Just a few initial comments:
BuildRequires: python-devel
This is deprecated, you have to require python2-devel:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Regarding the runtime requirements of the subpackages, first have a look what
rpm pulls automatically before adding some things there by hand. I'm quite sure
that the -devel package will get the python2-devel dependency anyway.
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
For arch-dependent packages, we need a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Don't mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the same spec file.
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
This line is obsolete, even for EPEL-5 packages, although rpmlint doesn't say
so.
Please remove unneeded parts from the file header (the line regarding
python_sitelib).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HOpmA5c2Bla=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974
--- Comment #15 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
quick look over spec:
Name: lfcbase
Version: 1.5.4
Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Lemke Foundation Classes
- License: GPLv2
+ License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+
GPL (v3 or later)
-
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lfcbase-1.5.4/src/base64.c
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lfcbase-1.5.4/src/base64.h
%package devel
Summary: Development files for %{name}
- Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%files devel
- %doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README samples/*.cc
+ %doc samples/*.cc
%{_includedir}/%{name}/*
%{_libdir}/*.so
they are already in main-pkg, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Duplicate_Files
Report this to upstream:
bug in build/linking:
unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblfcbase.so.1.0.0
/lib64/libcrypt.so.1
unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblfcbase.so.1.0.0
/lib64/libnsl.so.1
unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblfcbase.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
Update COPYING to recent rev. of GPLv2:
incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lfcbase-1.5.4/COPYING // caused by old
revision of GPLv2
Rest is fine:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lfcbase-
devel
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines --- duplicate files in
-devel, as above
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ---
should be GPLv2+ and GPLv3+, as above
[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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 39 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are
[Bug 963339] Review Request: libyui-bindings - Language bindings for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963339 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libyui-bindings Short Description: Language bindings for libyui Owners: besser82 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=887TPqlheva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960200] Review Request: libyui-qt - Qt User Interface for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960200 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libyui-qt Short Description: Qt User Interface for libyui Owners: besser82 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=SI1QHyCusra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #16 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- #15 didn't get mailed, bump. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RLhcpEOZSta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #17 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I'll contact upstream next week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=i4r0CKOjxBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #18 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Update/fix your spec and I'll give 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=4N766HJc6Ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #9) I don't understand your meaning very well... Why so many requires some pacakges without this flag? Can you tell me a reason why should I add this for this package? 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=vtWDgGQTy8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029
--- Comment #11 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
From http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/ArchDependencies:
[quote]
Architecture-specific Dependencies
On multiarch systems such as x86_64 it would be often desireable to express
that a package of compatible architecture is needed to satisfy a dependency. In
most of the cases this is already handled by the automatically extracted soname
dependencies, but this is not always the case: sometimes it's necessary to
disable the automatic dependency generation, and then there are cases where the
information cannot be automatically generated, such as -devel package
dependencies on other -devel packages and build dependencies. Consider the
following:
Name: foo
...
BuildRequires: libbar-devel = 2.2
%package devel
Requires: libbar-devel = 2.2
...
This works fine on single-arch systems such as i386, but it's not sufficient on
multiarch systems: when building a 32bit package on a 64bit system, a 32bit
version of the libbar-devel would be needed, but the above lets
libbar-devel.x86_64 satisfy the build dependency too, leading to obscure build
failure. Similarly a 32bit libbar-devel would incorrectly satisfy the
dependency for a 64bit package.
ISA Dependencies
In rpm 4.6.0, the concept of ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) was introduced
to permit differentiating between 32- and 64-bit versions without resorting to
file dependencies on obscure and/or library-version dependent paths. To declare
a dependency on a package name architecture specific, append %{?_isa} to the
dependency name, eg
Requires: libbar-devel%{?_isa} = 2.2
This will expand to libbar-devel(archfamily-bitness) depending on the build
target architecture, for example a native build on x86_64 would give
Requires: libbar-devel(x86-64) = 2.2
but with --target i386 (or i586, i686 etc) it would become
Requires: libbar-devel(x86-32) = 2.2
[/quote]
Why so many requires some pacakges without this flag?
They were problay created in times of rpm = 4.6.0 and maintainer didn't fix,
yet.
Can you tell me a reason why should I add this for this package?
The for adding the isa-macro (figlet%{?_isa}) is it's a new package, rpm is =
4.6.0 and it will prevent trouble for users installing it on multi-arch when
having figlet != %{_isa} already installed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SCx6xmJDsda=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #19 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Try this in your spec: %prep %setup -q %configure --disable-static + sed -i -e s/ -shared / -Wl,--as-needed\0/g' libtool to (probably) get rid of: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblfcbase.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libcrypt.so.1 unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblfcbase.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libnsl.so.1 unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblfcbase.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 update here and I'll run a mock-build again, to see what happenes... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GRFrTmwZwaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959974] Review Request: lfcbase - Lemke Foundation Classes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959974 --- Comment #20 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I know this. But I have to contact upstream for the license problem and then he may also solve this. I'll update the review request maybe next week as now it's weekend. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DuHCuUJYRaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201
--- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/pkg/libyui-qt-graph/libyui-qt-graph.spec
SRPM URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/pkg/libyui-qt-graph/libyui-qt-graph-2.42.5-2.fc18.src.rpm
Try again, please. If it will fail again, can you please provide a build.log?
%changelog
* Sat May 18 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.42.5-2
- add Patch0 to (hopefully) re-enable build on Fedora = 19
- removed {min_devel_ver} since versions in Fedora are mature enough
* Wed May 15 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.42.5-1
- new upstream version
- adjusted libyui-devel min-version
- added needed bootstrap to prep
* Mon May 13 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.42.4-1
- Initial RPM release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yQ2uSnWkNma=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029
Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
--- Comment #12 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
I'd argue against an arch'd figlet%{?_isa} dependency.
1. figlet is simply as an external binary tool (in /usr/bin), so it's arch
does not matter really (a non-native arch'd tool could work just as well).
That is, unless there is some non-obvious reason that makes a native arch
figlet work better in this case?
2. it does not matter, the figlet package is not multilib'd, so only the
native arch pkg will ever be available anyway. Much ado about nothing. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CNFqkgN9wEa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029
--- Comment #13 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
I didn't consider this a blocker, as I already granted fedora-review(+) in #5:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029#c5
I just did `yum list figlet` and noticed that it is an arched-pkg. I think
using %{?_isa} on explicit arched Requires is good practice and suggested
adding it.
It's up to Christopher to decide whether he adds it or not; fix this in
SCM,please was more meant a suggestion than a request... ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hqY5yGEbOJa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 --- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- as far as mt19937ar.c, turns out that code isn't used on linux either, but oh well. angle bundling exception submitted, https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/293 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lgZqfBs9dEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858084] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebKit component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858084 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- angle bundling exception submitted, https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/293 feel free to comment there if you have anything to add (or correct). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KfEg34HIQGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 Sam Tuke m...@samtuke.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@samtuke.com --- Comment #14 from Sam Tuke m...@samtuke.com --- Hi, any progress here? I'd really like to see this package in the repos. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LB1P8TPjQua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947071] Review Request: monitorix - A free, open source, lightweight system monitoring tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947071
--- Comment #14 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
[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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Some directories are not owned:
/usr/lib/%{name}/
%{_localstatedir}/lib/%{name}/
%{_localstatedir}/lib/%{name}/reports/
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
%{_datadir}/%{name}/cgi/
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Note:
* No need to explicitly require rrdtool
* Requires perl(HTTP::Server::Simple) is false, it actually uses
perl(HTTP::Server::Simple::CGI) which has been added to Requires by
rpmbuild automatically.
* Requires perl(DBD::mysql) is needed in mysql.pm, just Requires
perl(DBI) is not enough
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: missed BuildRequires perl
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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).
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
Note: The Perl modules provided should be filtered.
The Requires perl(Monitorix) and perl(HTTPServer) should be
filtered.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI
[Bug 947071] Review Request: monitorix - A free, open source, lightweight system monitoring tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947071 Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HI8SSCs8ypa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201 --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 749630 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=749630action=edit build failure output -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=92rKL4mcPMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964437] New: Review Request: mingw-portmidi - Real-time Midi I/O Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437 Bug ID: 964437 Summary: Review Request: mingw-portmidi - Real-time Midi I/O Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ulat...@yahoo.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: --- Spec URL: https://www.box.com/s/fx4bwehrbc2yr1206itq SRPM URL: https://www.box.com/s/kli19aumq1xznpizs67t Description: PortMedia is a set of simple clean APIs and cross-platform library implementations for music and other media. PortMidi sub-project provides a real-time MIDI input/output library. This is the MinGW version of a package that Fedora already has in its repository. Fedora Account System Username: ulatekh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TFmedSh9zsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964437] Review Request: mingw-portmidi - Real-time Midi I/O Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437 Steve ulat...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Steve ulat...@yahoo.com --- This is my first package; I have a lot more to submit, if this is successful. (My first priority is all of the dependent packages for the MinGW build of Mixxx, http://www.mixxx.org/ .) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9tDRfcxJrJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201 --- Comment #7 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Seems a bug in doxygen(-devel) to me: In file included from /usr/include/graphviz/gvc.h:17:0, -- includes ---+ from /.../libyui-qt-graph-.../src/QY2Graph.h:31,| from /.../libyui-qt-graph-.../src/QY2Graph.cc:34: | /usr/include/graphviz/types.h:49:20 -- this file --+ | fatal error: cgraph.h: No such file or directory -- includes --+ Which version of doxygen-devel does mock use during %build ? So I can file a bug against the corresponding doxygen-ver, if applicable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GWqsPeriPca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964412] Review Request: php-tcpdf - PHP class for generating PDF documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964412 Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #749642||review+ Flags|| --- Comment #1 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- Created attachment 749642 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=749642action=edit php-tcpdf-review Package builds fine in mock, installs properly, and work as expected. rpmlint is not clean, but: - php-tcpdf.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency php-zlib is false positive, - dangling symlinks are ok, files are provided by required packages TCPDF upstream package bundle few fonts, that has been unbundled. According to phpci; all Requires are present. === 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=1kWaS2XyFPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964412] Review Request: php-tcpdf - PHP class for generating PDF documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964412 Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | 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=BzWcDAq6Q1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201
--- Comment #8 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Build fails on rawhide using graphviz{,-devel}-2.30.1-7.fc20, too. Same reason:
complains about missing cgraph.h, although it's available in grahpviz-devel:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=4005344filename=/usr/include/graphviz/cgraph.h
Shall I file a bug against graphviz = 2.30.0 = 2.30.1-7, then?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6ipmJOX78Pa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201 --- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- It's a bug in libyui-qt-graph not setting the libcgraph headers search path during compilation. | /usr/include/graphviz/types.h:49:20: fatal error: cgraph.h: | No such file or directory | #include cgraph.h $ pkg-config --cflags libcgraph -I/usr/include/graphviz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=g9Scbxl0pZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
TL;DR summary: package is approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines. (GPL+ or Artistic)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: 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 2 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201 --- Comment #10 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- same as on F18... (-I/usr/include/graphviz isn't set here explicitly, either) #ifndef QY2Graph_h #define QY2Graph_h #include graphviz/gvc.h include is correct... #ifndef GVC_H #define GVC_H #include types.h // include ... should eval to same dir as file including #ifndef GV_TYPES_H #define GV_TYPES_H #include stdio.h #include assert.h #include signal.h ... #ifdef WITH_CGRAPH #include cgraph.h // here it's wrong ! -- cgraph.h ... #else ... #endif Or do you think differently? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iuNQAjGIhea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962160] Review Request: iipsrv - Light-weight streaming for viewing and zooming of ultra high-resolution images
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962160 --- Comment #2 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- I've fixed the %define, and made a bit of cleanup. The new version: Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/iipsrv/iipsrv.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/iipsrv/iipsrv-1.0.0-0.2.git0b63de7.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fIvbPhfjYsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201 --- Comment #11 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- if I explicitly include /usr/include/graphviz, this happens and build fails on rawhide (again): In file included from /usr/include/graphviz/types.h:49:0, from /usr/include/graphviz/gvc.h:17, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/QY2Graph.h:31, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraph.h:33, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.h:32, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.cc:28: /usr/include/graphviz/cgraph.h:43:25: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef struct Agraph_s Agraph_t' typedef struct Agraph_s Agraph_t; /* graph, subgraph (or hyperedge) */ ^ In file included from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraph.h:31:0, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.h:32, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.cc:28: /usr/include/yui/YGraph.h:32:12: error: 'struct Agraph_t' has a previous declaration as 'struct Agraph_t' struct Agraph_t; ^ In file included from /usr/include/graphviz/gvc.h:17:0, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/QY2Graph.h:31, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraph.h:33, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.h:32, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.cc:28: /usr/include/graphviz/types.h:50:29: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef struct Agraph_s graph_t' typedef struct Agraph_s graph_t; ^ In file included from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraph.h:31:0, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.h:32, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPlugin.cc:28: /usr/include/yui/YGraph.h:33:29: error: 'graph_t' has a previous declaration as 'typedef struct Agraph_t graph_t' typedef struct Agraph_t graph_t; ^ make[2]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/yui-qt-graph.dir/YQGraphPlugin.cc.o] Error 1 In file included from /usr/include/graphviz/types.h:49:0, from /usr/include/graphviz/gvc.h:17, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/QY2Graph.h:31, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraph.h:33, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPluginImpl.cc:29: /usr/include/graphviz/cgraph.h:43:25: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef struct Agraph_s Agraph_t' typedef struct Agraph_s Agraph_t; /* graph, subgraph (or hyperedge) */ ^ In file included from /usr/include/yui/qt/YQGraphPluginIf.h:28:0, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPluginImpl.h:31, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPluginImpl.cc:28: /usr/include/yui/YGraph.h:32:12: error: 'struct Agraph_t' has a previous declaration as 'struct Agraph_t' struct Agraph_t; ^ In file included from /usr/include/graphviz/gvc.h:17:0, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/QY2Graph.h:31, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraph.h:33, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPluginImpl.cc:29: /usr/include/graphviz/types.h:50:29: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef struct Agraph_s graph_t' typedef struct Agraph_s graph_t; ^ In file included from /usr/include/yui/qt/YQGraphPluginIf.h:28:0, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPluginImpl.h:31, from /builddir/build/BUILD/libyui-qt-graph-44b67c791be951daeec046240e6b74106f3573f1/src/YQGraphPluginImpl.cc:28: /usr/include/yui/YGraph.h:33:29:
[Bug 750394] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750394 --- Comment #51 from Kapil Arya ka...@ccs.neu.edu --- Hi Orion, I am sorry to bother you once again. Apparently, I still can't change the fedora_cvs flag. Looks like there is some syncing issue between bugzilla and my fedora account. Both of them have the same email address. Although my PGP key has an extra email address, I don't think that should be an issue here. Do you have any ideas? Thanks, Kapil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jEkzJOmYdoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964412] Review Request: php-tcpdf - PHP class for generating PDF documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964412 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-tcpdf Short Description: PHP class for generating PDF documents Owners: remi trasher Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lLRvTp63vJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858084] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebKit component
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858084 --- Comment #10 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Thanks for the heads up. I just subscribed myself to that ticket Earlier today I managed to get ANGLE successfully un-bundled from mingw-qt5-qtwebkit. Luckily the webkit developers managed to get more stuff upstreamed and reduced their amount of local patches. After updating mingw-angleproject to the latest snapshot the 'missing features' issue was resolved. The other major blocker was the use of symbols which are only exported in the one of the ANGLE static libraries. To workaround this I adjusted the list of symbols which are exported in the libGLESv2.dll library: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mingw-angleproject.git/commit/?id=b353fa9cfc3fb5995340ce2242a1be08d3cd05ab With these changes and http://svn.nntpgrab.nl/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtwebkit/qtwebkit-dont-use-bundled-angle-libraries.patch I managed to get mingw-qt5-qtwebkit built using the ANGLE shared library from the mingw-angleproject package. I'm currently doing some more tests to be more certain that everything works but things look good so far. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=r7kySRvHuYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957465] Review Request: minised - A smaller, cheaper, faster SED implementation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957465 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- minised-1.14-2.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=FoxeZC98KGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961141] Review Request: debhelper - Helper programs for debian/rules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961141 --- Comment #24 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com --- Created attachment 749662 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=749662action=edit update dependencies of (new) dpkg Hi, we need update dependencies of dpkg , my propose specify dpkg versions = 1.16.10 to force to use the newer dpkg packages . all rest, seems to me, is OK and ready to be approved. could you apply this patch to the review ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OzSwXFUDSra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958358] Review Request: darkhttpd - A secure, lightweight, fast, single-threaded HTTP/1.1 server
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958358
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
TL;DR summary: package is approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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. (BSD)
[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
[-]: 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
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
ISC. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ktdreyer/fedora-
scm/darkhttpd/958358-darkhttpd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Since the only code file already contains comments describing its status
under the BSD license, I don't see a point in including the same license
as a separate file.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 962813] Review Request: funguloids - Space-Flying-Mushroom-Picking-Simulator game
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962813
--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
Hi Hans,
you didn't assign a review from me, anyway i start working on yours.
I general your package looks good, but i've one questions.
Issues:
===
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
Note: desktop file(s) in funguloids
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
faults positiv in every current review at the moment.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 20664320 bytes in /usr/share 20664320
funguloids-1.06-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
I'm not shure if this is fixable, because your package doesn't use /{libdir} ,
but it isn't noarch.
So i'm thinking, /usr/share/funguloids (20.3 MB) contains libaries for the
package.
Or did the package work if you move this directory to a noarch subpackage?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WARA0Pq4DDa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960201] Review Request: libyui-qt-graph - Qt Graph Widget for libyui
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960201 --- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- #include graphviz/gvc.h include is correct... Hard to say. The graphviz pkgconfig files disagree. They add the headers search path /usr/include/graphviz, which means API users are supposed to #include gvc.h without the leading graphviz/. The graphviz headers could also be installed in /usr/include/graphviz-2.30.1/graphviz (think multiple parallel-installed APIs of graphviz), and pkg-config --cflags would add that as a direct search path and not /usr/include/graphviz-2.30.1 instead. None of the graphviz header files append graphviz/, $ grep /usr/include/graphviz/*|grep graphv $ but most of them include as foo.h not foo.h, so current dir works anyway. That including graphviz/foo.h works is clear when graphviz is located in standard search path. There are a couple of builds that use libcgraph successfully (perhaps some of them use pkg-config though): # repoquery --whatrequires 'libcgraph.so.6()(64bit)'|grep -v graphviz fawkes-guis-0:0.5.0-7.fc19.x86_64 flowcanvas-0:0.7.1-10.fc19.x86_64 libgda-tools-1:5.1.2-2.fc19.x86_64 root-graf-gviz-0:5.34.07-1.fc19.x86_64 graphviz-doc cgraph.3.pdf (PDF version of man 3 cgraph) and several of the other lib manuals contain an example that does include graphviz/….h whereas man 3 cdt e.g. does include cdt.h. Contradictory. Huh? $ grep cgraph /usr/include/graphviz/types.h #include cgraph.h #include cgraph.h $ grep cgraph /usr/include/graphviz/gvpr.h #include cgraph.h /usr/include/graphviz/cgraph.h:43:25: error: conflicting declaration 'typedef struct Agraph_s Agraph_t' Yes, these are clearly defined in graphviz/types.h already, so porting from libgraph to libcgraph API may need adjustments in libyui-qt-graph. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EUqBBzcxpta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959029] Review Request: ascii-design - A tool to create ascii arts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029 --- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Re: comment 2 Qt as an explicite requirement is redundant, rpm picks it up automatically due to system calls during the compilation. More correctly, rpm-build examines the built files (installed into the %buildroot) in its find-requires step. For example, from executables and libs it extracts the library SONAMEs the files are linked with. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TmGzgNe3XMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 963265] Review Request: freecode-submit - A tool help submit release information to freecode.com
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963265 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Re: comment 4 License: BSD with advertising That's also relevant with regard to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_does_it_mean_when_a_license_is_listed_as_.22GPLv2_compat.22_or_.22GPLv3_compatible.22.3F -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=T55rUxaoITa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #15 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Eduardo, can we move forward on this? As long as its not looked at by ldconfig we are seriouly OK here. We are not breaching any guidelines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QHs4lLLNhEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 --- Comment #16 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Ok @Brendan, no one has stopped taking seriously this package. please update the package and I'll do the review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SSZ1hIb1Aga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865699] Review Request: ladish - LADI Audio session handler
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865699 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=R9Sug3BUnUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783016] Review Request: pilas - A simple to use video game framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783016 --- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Any update here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lzYxfvE3SMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806117] Review Request: python-oplop - Generate account passwords based on account nicknames
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806117 --- Comment #16 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- anew, any update here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yEJuHrH3FKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 870977] Review Request: glassfish-jaxws - JAX-WS Reference Implementation (RI) Project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870977 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-jaxws.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-jaxws-2.2.7-1.fc18.src.rpm - added missing BR: ant-junit Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5397468 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LUjIIxuBvZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 925982] Review Request: drupal6-vote_up_down - Provides a configurable up/down voting widget for other modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925982 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal6-vote_up_down-3.2-1. |drupal6-vote_up_down-3.2-1. |el6 |fc17 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-vote_up_down-3.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vQX2NYASnJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 925975] Review Request: drupal6-userpoints - Provides an API for users to gain or lose points
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925975 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal6-userpoints-1.2-1.el |drupal6-userpoints-1.2-1.fc |6 |17 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-userpoints-1.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=or5fkN1Bw6a=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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||native-platform-0.3-0.2.rc2 ||.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-05-18 22:30:47 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- native-platform-0.3-0.2.rc2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sah0qvKAapa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958006] Review Request: zanata-common - zanata common modules
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958006 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- zanata-common-2.2.1-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6vH2GKF3ooa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 925974] Review Request: drupal6-user_badges - Enables assignment of graphical badges to users and roles
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925974 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal6-user_badges-1.6-1.e |drupal6-user_badges-1.6-1.f |l6 |c18 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-user_badges-1.6-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CwvNnhkndEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960401] Review Request: xssstate - A simple tool to retrieve the X screen saver state
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960401 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xssstate-1.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iJUYBw9c1na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
