[Bug 967816] Review Request: maven-hpi-plugin - Maven plugin to build Jenkins plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967816 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-05-31 02:02:44 --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- The package is now available in Rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BAv5NIoZDDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966324] Review Request: codecrypt - The post-quantum cryptography tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966324
--- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
There are some files with bsd license, can you review them? to check that we
are not incurring in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
BSD (2 clause)
--
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/
src/sha2.c
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/
src/sha2.h
* BUNDLED LIB CONFIRMED *
This is perfectly the same as provided by sha2(-devel) !!!
Make upstream aware of this and ask to add a check for a usable sha2.h /
sha2-lib during configure, which only includes/links the sources-shipped
sha2-files if no working sha2-lib is found.
tiger.{c,h} is NOT A DUPLICATE (checked against libtiger, cryptopp, botan)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oYvF6ZTP65a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969271] New: Review Request: cometd - A scalable HTTP-based event routing bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969271 Bug ID: 969271 Summary: Review Request: cometd - A scalable HTTP-based event routing bus Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/cometd.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/cometd-2.6.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Cometd is a scalable HTTP-based event routing bus that uses a Ajax Push technology pattern known as Comet. The term 'Comet' was coined by Alex Russell in his post Comet: Low Latency Data for the Browser. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=731fGq4spJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821136] Review Request: yuicompressor-maven-plugin - YUI Compressor Maven Mojo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821136 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||969271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wy0h2J8ddLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969271] Review Request: cometd - A scalable HTTP-based event routing bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969271 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=B5yvSfjUS4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969271] Review Request: cometd - A scalable HTTP-based event routing bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969271 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||821136 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e8Eqe5seKJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968136] Review Request: camel - Apache Camel integration framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968136 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||969271 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FkqE5Dle4ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969271] Review Request: cometd - A scalable HTTP-based event routing bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969271 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||968136 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NH8Ht9NSH6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968136] Review Request: camel - Apache Camel integration framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968136 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=53JGGBm3Kca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967187] Review Request: wemux - A tool help improve multi-user terminal multiplexing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967187 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wemux-2.2.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wemux-2.2.0-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xej26eImUNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967187] Review Request: wemux - A tool help improve multi-user terminal multiplexing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967187 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wemux-2.2.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wemux-2.2.0-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=J87nEg34Bwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967620] Review Request: edelib - Small and portable C++ library for EDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967620 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- NEW Spec URL: http://cicku.me/edelib.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/edelib-2.0-2.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=dIwxveztdka=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962189 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: cego Short Description: A relational and transactional database Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KDw79lMk8Fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966324] Review Request: codecrypt - The post-quantum cryptography tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966324
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #5)
* BUNDLED LIB CONFIRMED *
This is perfectly the same as provided by sha2(-devel) !!!
Make upstream aware of this and ask to add a check for a usable sha2.h /
sha2-lib during configure, which only includes/links the sources-shipped
sha2-files if no working sha2-lib is found.
tiger.{c,h} is NOT A DUPLICATE (checked against libtiger, cryptopp, botan)
Thanks, this should be done by myself...
Deeply appreciate your hard work!
I'll report this to upstream.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K208xuTBfLa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966324] Review Request: codecrypt - The post-quantum cryptography tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966324 Mirek Kratochvil exa@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||exa@gmail.com, ||nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags||needinfo?(nobody@fedoraproj ||ect.org) --- Comment #7 from Mirek Kratochvil exa@gmail.com --- Hi everyone, I was not aware that fedora has its own package for sha2, gonna add configure check asap. Q: Is there some problem with copying RIPEMD-128 implementation as seen in src/ripemd128.[ch] ? Thanks, -mk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5BXKG7BzVMa=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804125 --- Comment #11 from Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #10) cal 2012 tells me that October 21st 2012 was a Sunday, not a Wednesday. Fixed One new non-executable-script complaint: python-rdkit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rdkit/Chem/MCS.py 0644L /usr/bin/env and one old one: python-rdkit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rdkit/utils/pydoc_local.py 0644L /usr/bin/env Not sure what you want to do with those. The first one is really a python module, so I removed the shebang. The second I am not sure, asked upstream. Still some spurious-executable-perm complaints in the debuginfo package. Why would cpp and header files be executable in the source tree? not intentional I guess, reported upstream Could you comment on the purpose of these? Would it not be better for these to be packaged as documentation? Actually, that pretty much goes for the rest of the stuff in rdkit-extras; at least the Contrib stuff doesn't seem to be terribly useful just sitting under /usr/share. rdkit-extras.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/RDKit/Contrib/PBF/PBFRDKit.h rdkit-extras.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/RDKit/Contrib/PBF/demo.cpp rdkit-extras.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/RDKit/Contrib/PBF/PBFRDKit.cpp The extras are examples of actual rdkit usage. I am not sure where it is best to put them in the filesystem, but if consensus is they should go in docs I can surely move them. Can you comment on the stuff in the External directory? I just want to make sure none of it is bundled external code. Also on the subject of the External directory, some of it is differently licensed (cmim is GPL, pymol is Pymol, whatever that is). Can you be certain that none of that is included in the final package? If not, the License: tag will need modification. That is supposed to contain glue code to USE external code. For instance, inchi is pulled as a dep and linked as usual. pymol is code from upstream, I asked to put there a proper license. I also asked upstream about cmim, it seems from the build logs it is using just a couple modules from that, maybe it can be replaced or disabled. Why do all of the libraries seem to carry a 1beta1 when this is versioned as a post-release package? not sure why it was there, but the suffix looks correct in the latest package I kind of wish the masses if library files all carried a some sort of libRD prefix, because there are so many of them and they appear to be rather generically named, especially libhc.so. Yeah, I can propose upstream to add a prefix on all, nice to see no conflicts were found though. http://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit.spec http://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit-2013.03.2-1.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=EQXr2PQ4JEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967403] Review Request: python-tvrage - Python client for the tvrage.com XML API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967403 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1) python-devel in BR is deprecated, use python2-devel: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Fixed. Actually you are packaging a fully versioned tarball, but in particular you are using a VCS checkout. Somewhat strange that a developer a kind of rolling release this way... The release tag has to reflect this issue. See for more information (and to get a proper upgrade path): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages Is it a problem? I don't think so, the author has tagged it as 0.4.1 so I think we don't need to care about it's from when and where. Just ran rpmlint on your spec: rpmlint -i -v * python-tvrage.spec:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 9) Fixed. python-tvrage.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-tvrage/python-tvrage-0.4.1. tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) Your internet problem. There are some testing scripts in the tests subfolder, is it possible to run them (in a %check section)? Fixed. NEW Spec URL: http://cicku.me/python-tvrage.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/python-tvrage-0.4.1-2.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=5TteVLsMbva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915864] Review Request: oat - Attestation Service Host Agent based on OpenAttestation SDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915864 --- Comment #23 from Gang Wei gang@intel.com --- Spec URL: http://gwei3.fedorapeople.org/package_review/oat/v6/oat.spec SRPM URL: http://gwei3.fedorapeople.org/package_review/oat/v6/oat-1.6.0-5.fc20.src.rpm Fixed all rpmlint warnings expect one systemd script false positive and 12 manual-page missings. Tested with fedora-review with fedora-rawhide-x86_64 buildroot. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZjtkAfjeOga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841483] Review Request: kde-plasma-mail-checker - Plasmoid for checking a new messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841483 --- Comment #27 from Fl@sh kaperan...@gmail.com --- New build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=544 SPEC: https://raw.github.com/F1ash/kde-plasma-mail-checker/simple/kde-plasma-mail-checker.spec SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4445/545/kde-plasma-mail-checker-1.15.60-1.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=7XRdtz00L8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966324] Review Request: codecrypt - The post-quantum cryptography tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966324 --- Comment #8 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mirek Kratochvil from comment #7) Hi everyone, I was not aware that fedora has its own package for sha2, gonna add configure check asap. Q: Is there some problem with copying RIPEMD-128 implementation as seen in src/ripemd128.[ch] ? Thanks, -mk Hi Mirek, yes, apparently is part of beecrypt-devel, see the file marked with * repoquery --list beecrypt-devel /usr/include/beecrypt /usr/include/beecrypt/aes.h /usr/include/beecrypt/aesopt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/api.h /usr/include/beecrypt/base64.h /usr/include/beecrypt/beecrypt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blockmode.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blockpad.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blowfish.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blowfishopt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dhies.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dldp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dlkp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dlpk.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dlsvdp-dh.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dsa.h /usr/include/beecrypt/elgamal.h /usr/include/beecrypt/endianness.h /usr/include/beecrypt/entropy.h /usr/include/beecrypt/fips186.h /usr/include/beecrypt/gnu.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmac.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacmd5.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha1.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha224.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha256.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha384.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha512.h /usr/include/beecrypt/md4.h /usr/include/beecrypt/md5.h /usr/include/beecrypt/memchunk.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpbarrett.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpnumber.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpopt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpprime.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mtprng.h /usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs1.h /usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs12.h /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd128.h /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd160.h /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd256.h /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd320.h /usr/include/beecrypt/rsa.h /usr/include/beecrypt/rsakp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/rsapk.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha1.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha1opt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha224.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha256.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k32.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k64.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha384.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha512.h /usr/include/beecrypt/timestamp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/win.h /usr/lib/libbeecrypt.so /usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1 /usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1/BUGS /usr/include/beecrypt /usr/include/beecrypt/aes.h /usr/include/beecrypt/aesopt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/api.h /usr/include/beecrypt/base64.h /usr/include/beecrypt/beecrypt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blockmode.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blockpad.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blowfish.h /usr/include/beecrypt/blowfishopt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dhies.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dldp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dlkp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dlpk.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dlsvdp-dh.h /usr/include/beecrypt/dsa.h /usr/include/beecrypt/elgamal.h /usr/include/beecrypt/endianness.h /usr/include/beecrypt/entropy.h /usr/include/beecrypt/fips186.h /usr/include/beecrypt/gnu.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmac.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacmd5.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha1.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha224.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha256.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha384.h /usr/include/beecrypt/hmacsha512.h /usr/include/beecrypt/md4.h /usr/include/beecrypt/md5.h /usr/include/beecrypt/memchunk.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpbarrett.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpnumber.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpopt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mpprime.h /usr/include/beecrypt/mtprng.h /usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs1.h /usr/include/beecrypt/pkcs12.h * /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd128.h /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd160.h /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd256.h /usr/include/beecrypt/ripemd320.h /usr/include/beecrypt/rsa.h /usr/include/beecrypt/rsakp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/rsapk.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha1.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha1opt.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha224.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha256.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k32.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha2k64.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha384.h /usr/include/beecrypt/sha512.h /usr/include/beecrypt/timestamp.h /usr/include/beecrypt/win.h /usr/lib64/libbeecrypt.so /usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1 /usr/share/doc/beecrypt-devel-4.2.1/BUGS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fTPnOejiOHa=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877607
--- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #4)
Review revealed:
BLOCKERS:
* No fully versioned dependency in pythia8-hepmcinterface-devel,
pythia8-data, pythia8-examples, pythia8-doc present.
Should be Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release},
if needed or present.
pythia8-hepmcinterface-devel has
Requires:%{name}-hepmcinterface%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires:%{name}-devel%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
These dependencies are both motivated because of the symlink that points to the
library in the pythia8-hepmcinterface package and that the installed header
file in turn includes header files in pythia8-devel respectively. No such
motivation exists for a direct dependency on the main package. The requirement
that a package containing the license file is installed is ensured by the
dependency chain (both the dependencies above in turn have a versioned
dependency on the main package). The guidelines do not require a direct
dependency for this purpose.
For the others (pythia8-data, pythia8-examples, pythia8-doc) there is also no
need for a dependecy on the main package. The only reason for such a dependency
on the main package would be to install a package containing the license file.
However, these three subpackages have their own copy of the license file
included instead.
The guidelines say that the dependency must be fully qualified when needed and
present. In thes cases the dependencies are neither needed nor present. The
guidelines do not say make sure to always add a dependencies on the main
package.
* rpmlint is not so happy (ignored and false positives snipped)...
Rpmlint
---
Checking: pythia8-8.1.76-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
pythia8-devel-8.1.76-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
pythia8-hepmcinterface-8.1.76-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
pythia8-hepmcinterface-devel-8.1.76-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
pythia8-data-8.1.76-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
pythia8-examples-8.1.76-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
pythia8-doc-8.1.76-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
pythia8-examples.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/pythia8-examples-8.1.76/softsusy.spc
pythia8-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/pythia8-doc-8.1.76/pythia.css
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
--- Fix wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding by using
`sed -i 's/\r//' file_to_strip ` as recommended in wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues \
#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
Fixed (though I prefer using dos2unix - which the quoted guideline offers as a
valid option).
NON-BLOCKERS:
* If want to pkg for el5 you should add a %clean-target
(like in blocking review-bugs) to spec-file...
Thanks. Added.
* Ask upstream to replace calling `exit()` with throwing an exception,
if possible:
pythia8-hepmcinterface.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libhepmcinterface.so.8.1.76 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
The calls to exit are condisionalized in the code:
if ( m_crash_on_problem ) exit(1);
and m_crash_on_problem is false by default in the constructor. So you need to
actively enable the calls to exit() if you want them.
New version:
Spec URL: http://grid.tsl.uu.se/review/pythia8.spec
SRPM URL: http://grid.tsl.uu.se/review/pythia8-8.1.76-3.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=daxG3iuhHXa=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877275
--- Comment #8 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #7)
Review revealed:
BLOCKERS:
* pdfsets-minimal pdfsets-doc
--- Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} \
!= \
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Incorrect. Noarch subpackages must never have %{?_isa} dependencies. Noarch
packages must be installable on any architecture.
NON-BLOCKERS:
* el5 legacy-stuff ( RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTION )
I'd start using conditionals or expansions for el5-lagacy in spec-files
like these examples:
I disagree with you on this point. Conditionals are great where they are needed
in order to make a difference. But if used solely to exclude lines that would
be ignored or have no effect they just add clutter that makes the specfile
harder to read. I would not call RHEL5 legacy since it is an actively
maintained ditribution. RHEL4 is legacy.
The additional lines needed for EPEL5 will be removed when RHEL5 is EOL, just
as additional lines for EPEL4 are being removed when packages are updated now
that RHEL4 is EOL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aFf4ZHO3wya=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877396] Review Request: HepMC - C++ Event Record for Monte Carlo Generators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877396
--- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #4)
Review revealed:
BLOCKERS:
* HepMC-doc
--- Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} \
!= \
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Incorrect. Noarch subpackages must never have %{?_isa} dependencies. Noarch
packages must be installable on any architecture.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1Ldb5U9ZpXa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969350] New: Review Request: watchman - Watches files and takes action when they change
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969350 Bug ID: 969350 Summary: Review Request: watchman - Watches files and takes action when they change Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rel...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/watchman/watchman.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/watchman/watchman-2.5.2-0.1.20130531git.fc19.src.rpm Description: Watchman exists to watch files and record when they actually change. It can also trigger actions (such as rebuilding assets) when matching files change. Fedora Account System Username: codeblock -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CRP2XMGXKfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest-cpp.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #17 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- The .la is not needed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries Libtool archives, foo.la files, should not be included And if upstream didn't make a release, we shouldn't decide that it will be 1.5, maybe they will go to 1.4.1, or 2.0. So until that, this should be kept to 1.4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XYJUCpfjSNa=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962189 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NaoLgMITJ3a=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962189 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZoibmyS39Ya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962612] Review Request: python-requests-kerberos - A Kerberos authentication handler for python-requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962612 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nmFGwSEEYWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962612] Review Request: python-requests-kerberos - A Kerberos authentication handler for python-requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962612 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7SCnStBFtFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947509] Review Request: glassfish-annotation-api - Common Annotations API Specification (JSR 250)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947509 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NwAK0ALIGPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947509] Review Request: glassfish-annotation-api - Common Annotations API Specification (JSR 250)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947509 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glassfish-annotation-api-1.2-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glassfish-annotation-api-1.2-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Dsuxl3iyd8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947509] Review Request: glassfish-annotation-api - Common Annotations API Specification (JSR 250)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947509 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glassfish-annotation-api-1.2-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glassfish-annotation-api-1.2-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FzHV7Y24REa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you, Mario. Updated SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-testresources.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-testresources-0.2.7-2.fc19.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=g1EDqU5wAia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969387] New: Review Request: freetiger - Free implementation of the tiger hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969387 Bug ID: 969387 Summary: Review Request: freetiger - Free implementation of the tiger hash algorithm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bjoern.es...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/freetiger/freetiger.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/freetiger/freetiger-5-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: freetiger is an implementation of the tiger hash algorithm made looking only at the tiger reference paper (thus ignoring the reference code until a working implementation was made). It also includes a modified version of the main program included with the tiger reference implementation which was used for benchmarking purposes. It has been optimized for usage in the TTH calculation algorithm and includes optimized versions that will calculate the hashes for the 1024 byte file chunks and the 48 byte hash concatenation appending the proper suffix automatically thus minimizing memory to memory copying. Also freetiger features interleaved hashing where the hashes of two different blocks are calculated at the same time interleaving the operations of one and the other. Using this increases the implementation performance. freetiger also supports SSE2 for key scheduling during the tiger rounds which also increases performance on processors supporting it and provides an implementation of the partial hashing scheme for a more secure password storage when authenticating clients using the GPA command in ADC. Fedora Account System Username: besser82 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t2NSNJAMAea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969387] Review Request: freetiger - Free implementation of the tiger hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969387 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Thanks for packaging it~ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6ksoE55E8Pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Based on information here [0], it also supports Python 3. What about a Python 3 subpackage? [0] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/testresources -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=X7k7PR4lxra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969387] Review Request: freetiger - Free implementation of the tiger hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969387 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||966324 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BBvKSUghGBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966324] Review Request: codecrypt - The post-quantum cryptography tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966324 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||969387 --- Comment #9 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- BSD (3 clause) -- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/ src/tiger.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/codecrypt-1.1/ src/tiger.h * BUNDLED LIB CONFIRMED * These are now available through freetiger, I just filed a review-bug for. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AIKUZMGUaGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ukUG5Ol6gPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913200] Review Request: python-testrepository - A repository of test results
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913200
--- Comment #9 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com ---
Manual Review:
--
Short
~
- Looks good.
- TODO: Once 'python-subunit' package is ready, I can do a koji scratch build.
Long:
~
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.
%files
%doc README.txt Apache-2.0
%{_bindir}/testr
%{python_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
%{python_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-
testrepository/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
- We don't rely on Python Eggs, so the above is not applicable. Discussed
this with Pádraig.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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.
As usual, if something is missing, feel free to point it out.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xO3T1EJwsKa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229
Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mru...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= Issues =
Must: testresources/tests/TestUtil.py license
Should: Python 3 subpackage
= 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
testresources/tests/TestUtil.py is GPLv2+!
It also has incorrect FSF address
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Except the license thing above
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve
[Bug 968339] Review Request: ps_mem - Memory profiling tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968339 Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ps_mem Short Description: Memory profiling tool Owners: jcapik Branches: f19 el6 el5 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=U4RALIpKzca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969417] New: Review Request: aime - An application embeddable programming language interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969417 Bug ID: 969417 Summary: Review Request: aime - An application embeddable programming language interpreter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cicku...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://cicku.me/aime.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/aime-5.20130520-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: aime is a programming language, with a C like syntax, intended for application extending purposes. The aime collection comprises the language description, an application embeddable interpreter (libaime), the interpreter C interface description and a standalone interpreter. Many examples on how the interpreter can be used (embedded in an application) are also available, together with some hopefully useful applications, such as expression evaluators. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1WyFHek3lka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882477] Review Request: springframework-security - Modular Java/J2EE application security framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882477 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BQhxHWr1LHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882476] Review Request: openid4java - This library allows you to OpenID-enable your Java webapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882476 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5ma4AxDUSYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967517] Review Request: openrdate - Good-old rdate date and time-setting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967517 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(hho...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #3 from Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com --- Thanks for taking up this review. (In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #1) I'll take this, since I requested it... So, question #1, why the Epoch? If you're thinking you need an epoch because you want to obsolete a higher-versioned package, I don't think you do. A new package with a different name can obsolete a higher-versioned old package. OK, I removed Provides: rdate... and also Epoch. (In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #2) License should be BSD and BSD with advertising Changed to BSD and BSD with advertising. Adjusted spec and srpm: Spec URL: http://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/openrdate-review/openrdate.spec SRPM URL: http://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/openrdate-review/openrdate-1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UQJ6fiuUPXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review! wrong fsf-address: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address, I'll notify upstream Regarding py3 package: I'm working on it https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969413 Updated SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-testresources.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-testresources-0.2.7-3.fc19.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=wMLGxtdCuFa=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877607 Bug 877607 depends on bug 877275, which changed state. Bug 877275 Summary: Review Request: lhapdf - Les Houches Accord PDF Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877275 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JQ8vvHU54ua=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877275
Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
Last Closed||2013-05-31 07:56:09
--- Comment #9 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
For what reason does pdfsets-doc require %{name} = %{version}-%{release}? Just
for COPYING? Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of that dep adding %doc COPYING
to -doc?
With pdfsets-minimal you're right; I missed that noarch-part. ;)
Is this needed for using the lib or just some extra goodies?
The EPEL5-stuff was just some suggestion...
So it's up to you squashing these minor stuff on SCM.
This one is
APPROVED!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uh6wzmKpuia=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877607 Bug 877607 depends on bug 877396, which changed state. Bug 877396 Summary: Review Request: HepMC - C++ Event Record for Monte Carlo Generators https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877396 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YS6VEWw2GHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877396] Review Request: HepMC - C++ Event Record for Monte Carlo Generators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877396
Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last Closed||2013-05-31 08:00:23
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
For what reason does HepMC-doc require %{name} = %{version}-%{release}? Just
for COPYING? Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of that dep adding %doc COPYING
to -doc?
see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Duplicate_Files
... One notable exception to this rule is around license texts. ...
It's up to you squashing this minor stuff on SCM.
So another one is
APPROVED!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Y2YcyAcai0a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968339] Review Request: ps_mem - Memory profiling tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968339 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4CjnOcQkm2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968339] Review Request: ps_mem - Memory profiling tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968339 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xbX6RTzviSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882476] Review Request: openid4java - This library allows you to OpenID-enable your Java webapp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882476 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openid4java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openid4java-0.9.8-0.1.741.fc18.src.rpm -update to 0.9.8.741 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Vd2kLVKtOFa=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877607 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ Last Closed||2013-05-31 08:14:29 --- Comment #6 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Allright, then! * wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding is fixed. * No fully versioned dependency was my fault (didn't mind the dep-chain). * shared-lib-calls-exit is a false positive. So the third one in this chain is APPROVED! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O1av5VUDdAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969436] New: Review Request: php-PHP-CSS-Parser - A Parser for CSS Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969436 Bug ID: 969436 Summary: Review Request: php-PHP-CSS-Parser - A Parser for CSS Files 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 Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/5e28aba14e3ebff3fa3f237f378b2149ead8f2ff/php/php-PHP-CSS-Parser/php-PHP-CSS-Parser.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-PHP-CSS-Parser-5.0.5-1.remi.src.rpm Description: PHP CSS Parser: a Parser for CSS Files written in PHP. Allows extraction of CSS files into a data structure, manipulation of said structure and output as (optimized) CSS. Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0HMiwnOhAda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969436] Review Request: php-PHP-CSS-Parser - A Parser for CSS Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969436 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- This is a dependency of Horde_Css_Parser -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q2AFzxhomHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969438] New: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Css-Parser - Horde CSS Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969438 Bug ID: 969438 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Css-Parser - Horde CSS Parser 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 Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/1a89d6975a457447deecc13675cd09dea19ebd68/php/horde/php-horde-Horde-Css-Parser/php-horde-Horde-Css-Parser.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-Horde-Css-Parser-1.0.0-2.remi.src.rpm Description: This package provides access to the Sabberworm CSS Parser from within the Horde framework. Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ss05TwfvUva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917191] Review Request: awake - A command to 'wake on LAN' a remote host
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917191 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-05-31 08:19:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZGiYSUSJ32a=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960041 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-05-31 08:19:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4SxT7NmaI8a=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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962189 Bug 962189 depends on bug 960041, which changed state. Bug 960041 Summary: Review Request: lfcxml - Lemke Foundation Classes XML extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960041 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eadWAYCs4xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969436] Review Request: php-PHP-CSS-Parser - A Parser for CSS Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969436 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||969438 (Horde_Css_Parser) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nNg1MJrlGAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969438] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Css-Parser - Horde CSS Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969438 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Depends On||969436 Alias||Horde_Css_Parser --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- New dependency of horde/imp 6.0.5 -- 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=kX6oFGYmgIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889262] Review Request: globus-gridmap-verify-myproxy-callout - Globus Toolkit - Globus gridmap myproxy callout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889262 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? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0qddzXHNzDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889261] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-lsf - Globus Toolkit - LSF Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889261 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? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ATFw7cVVNJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229 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? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=THDd35c7PFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889261] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-lsf - Globus Toolkit - LSF Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889261 --- Comment #2 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- configure-script throws some warnings during build: checking for mpiexec... no checking for mpirun... configure: WARNING: Cannot locate mpiexec no configure: WARNING: Cannot locate mpirun configure: WARNING: Using default lsf profile of /etc/profile.lsf checking for bsub... configure: WARNING: Unable to read lsf.profile, manual configuration needed no checking for bqueues... configure: WARNING: Cannot locate bsub no checking for bjobs... configure: WARNING: Cannot locate bqueues no checking for bkill... configure: WARNING: Cannot locate bjobs no checking for bhist... configure: WARNING: Cannot locate bkill no checking for bacct... configure: WARNING: Cannot locate bhist no configure: WARNING: Cannot locate bacct rpmlint complains: Rpmlint --- Checking: globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-1.1-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-poll-1.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-seg-1.1-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm globus-gram-job-manager-lsf.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided globus-gram-job-manager-setup-lsf-doc globus-gram-job-manager-lsf.x86_64: E: no-binary globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-poll.noarch: W: no-documentation globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-seg.x86_64: W: no-documentation globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-seg.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/globus/scheduler-event-generator/available/lsf 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) # rpmlint globus-gram-job-manager-lsf globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-s etup-poll globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-seg globus-gram-job-manager-lsf.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided globus-gram-job-manager-setup-lsf-doc globus-gram-job-manager-lsf.x86_64: E: no-binary globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-poll.noarch: W: no-documentation globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-seg.x86_64: W: no-documentation globus-gram-job-manager-lsf-setup-seg.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/globus/scheduler-event-generator/available/lsf 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Does globus-gram-job-manager-lsf really need to be arched? It contains no arched binaries... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=F2d7MoOvWoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969209] Review Request: nx-libs - NX X11 protocol compression libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969209 Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mrcer...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mario Ceresa mrcer...@gmail.com --- Thanks Orion, for pursuing x2go packaging! I had the following errors trying to mock build it with fedora-review: ../../config/makedepend/makedepend: warning: imake.c (reading /usr/include/bits/byteswap-16.h), line 20: # error Never use bits/byteswap-16.h directly; include byteswap.h instead. ../../config/makedepend/makedepend: warning: makestrs.c (reading /usr/include/bits/byteswap-16.h), line 20: # error Never use bits/byteswap-16.h directly; include byteswap.h instead. ../../config/makedepend/makedepend: warning: AuDispose.c (reading /usr/include/bits/byteswap-16.h), line 20: # error Never use bits/byteswap-16.h directly; include byteswap.h instead. ../../config/makedepend/makedepend: warning: A8Eq.c (reading /usr/include/bits/byteswap-16.h), line 20: # error Never use bits/byteswap-16.h directly; include byteswap.h instead. /builddir/build/BUILD/nx-libs-3.5.0.20/my_configure: line 8: syntax error near unexpected token `./nx-X11/lib/Xft/config.guess' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yqfdWLodFFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: turbojpeg - TurboJPEG library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670 --- Comment #20 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu --- Got this email this morning: turbojpeg has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: turbojpeg-devel-1.2.1-2.fc20.i686 requires turbojpeg(x86-32) = 0:1.2.1-2.fc20 Please resolve this as soon as possible. Any ideas how I can fix that? Thanks a lot. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vE2WOKFnGea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: turbojpeg - TurboJPEG library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670 --- Comment #21 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- I thought this was supposed to be a package for EPEL only? why is this even built for rawhide? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=X3RbOnWWsVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: turbojpeg - TurboJPEG library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670 --- Comment #22 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu --- Sorry. I made a mistake. So I guess I need to delete this package from master then. I'll try to find some documentation on that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ggHgt4CqG2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: turbojpeg - TurboJPEG library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670 --- Comment #23 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- just untag the build is probably enough. koji untag-pkg f20 turbojpeg-1.2.1-2.fc20 That all said, doesn't answer the question why there was a multilib dep problem in the repo... it may well also occur for any EPEL builds too. ?? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=b2PHb7dQgea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957693] Review Request: gfal2-python - Python bindings for gfal 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957693
--- Comment #3 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com ---
Update :
Spec URL:
http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python/gfal2-python.spec
SRPM URL:
http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python/gfal2-python-1.2.0-1.el5.centos.src.rpm
Obviously your explicit runtime requirements are unneeded. Both Boost and
Python are picked up automatically.
-- Corrected
glib2-devel is redundant, it is needed by gfal2-devel anyway. Please drop it
from BR.
-- Done
-- Please use python2-devel instead of python-devel:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
-- Done
W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gfal2.so
gfal2.so
Don't know what it means and how this could be fixed. Any explanation is
welcome.
-- Means that a shared library is outside of the standard library path /lib
and /usr/lib, it's normal in the case of a python module.
The -doc subpackage doesn't contain any arch specific files, please tag it as
BuildArch: noarch. Moreover, the %{?_isa} tag there is obsolete then.
-- It's technicaly impossible from what I know to have one subpackage noarch
and an other arch specific inside the same SRPM.
A lot of package follow the pattern of -doc arch specific package.
xmltooling-doc.x86_64 : XML signing and encrytion library documentation
xmltooling-docs.x86_64 : XMLTooling API Documentation
xosd-devel.x86_64 : Development files for the XOSD on-screen display library
xqilla-doc.x86_64 : XQilla documentation
etc...
- The %changelog section is somewhat overloaded. Put any changes there
regarding the package itself, not the underlying upstream software.
-- Cleared
- Once the package is ready for importing it to the Git repo, make sure you
remove all the EPEL5-specific parts from the non-EPEL5 spec files (%defattr,
%clean section, initial cleaning of buildroot in %install and the BuildRoot:
tag).
I prefer keep one spec file and one SRPM for all plateform when possible, it
simplify a lot the version management and the updates.
Adrien
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AKdQDn3Tlqa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854670] Review Request: turbojpeg - TurboJPEG library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854670
--- Comment #24 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Thank you. That command succeeded.
I'm not sure. There were no errors I could see in the fedpkg build command
output. But that doesn't mean anything with this error I guess since I didn't
see errors when I mistakenly built this for rawhide.
In the spec file there is this section:
%ifarch %{ix86} x86_64
BuildRequires: nasm
%endif
and also in package devel:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Could one of those sections be the issue I wonder. Will we get emails for
broken dependencies in the el6 tree?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Tp5TNuDQN4a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fzNisGQxB2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@draigbrady.com
Assignee|loganje...@gmail.com|p...@draigbrady.com
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags|needinfo?(michel+fdr@sylves |
|tre.me) |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com ---
Matthias' update looks good, thanks!
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-extras
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/padraig/rhat/fedora-scm/openstack/python-extras
/review-python-extras/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
[Bug 968599] Review Request: nodejs-esprima - ECMAScript parsing infrastructure for multipurpose analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968599 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pSF7aI77iCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-testresources Short Description: Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources Owners: mrunge Branches: f19 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cizUZpOamIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #13 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com --- f18 would be good too. 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=pOnlcTzCdFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Michel, because it's urgent for us, I hope you don't mind, if I take this over, somehow. Of course, I'm adding you as maintainer here. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-extras Short Description: Useful extra bits for Python Owners: mrunge salimma Branches: f19 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0fvuBhxME7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968599] Review Request: nodejs-esprima - ECMAScript parsing infrastructure for multipurpose analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968599
Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Flags||needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora
||project.org)
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
Please explain the source of the manpages, consider downloading whole repo for
tests following the Github rule (or explain why not to)
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Note: There is bundled code for testing in Source1/test/3rdparty
But it is not packaged to the binary package
All test-related stuff is under Fedora approved licenses, so it is able to
stay in SRPM
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
Not sure, if you shouldn't apply Github rule for downlaoding tests
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
Where are the manpages from?
[-]: 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
[Bug 910159] Review Request: nodejs-jscoverage - A JavaScript coverage tool for Node.js and browser development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910159 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kk7pNCPjd5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910159] Review Request: nodejs-jscoverage - A JavaScript coverage tool for Node.js and browser development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910159 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Flags||needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora ||project.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=vE5XSk1J0Ma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910159] Review Request: nodejs-jscoverage - A JavaScript coverage tool for Node.js and browser development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910159 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Requires npm(optimist) 0.4, but npm(optimist) 0.4 is in the repo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RkGZ106E1ea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911023] Review Request: nodejs-ain2 - A Node.js module for syslog logging (and a continuation of ain)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911023 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hIZwM66myHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858082] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qttranslations - Qt5 for Windows - QtTranslations component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858082 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- I'm getting mingw-qt5-qttranslations.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.qtsoftware.com/ timed out. We just spoke on IRC about updating that to qt-project.org. Everything else appears to be addressed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5gSqlUtFlLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910159] Review Request: nodejs-jscoverage - A JavaScript coverage tool for Node.js and browser development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910159 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora | |project.org)| --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-jscoverage.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-2.fc19.src.rpm * Fri May 31 2013 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 0.3.7-2 - fix versioned dependency on npm(optimist) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kZsJTKVqsDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910159] Review Request: nodejs-jscoverage - A JavaScript coverage tool for Node.js and browser development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910159 --- Comment #6 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-jscoverage.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-3.fc19.src.rpm * Fri May 31 2013 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 0.3.7-3 - fix uglify-js dependency and symlink -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xH6DxLEKwKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858082] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qttranslations - Qt5 for Windows - QtTranslations component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858082 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-qt5-qttranslations Short Description: Qt5 for Windows - QtTranslations component Owners: epienbro Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qeb3FtNG58a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961402] Review Request: mingw-giflib - MinGW Windows giflib library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961402 --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- The BR: mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem needs to be versioned to = 95 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=o9tgWiouVta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961406] Review Request: mingw-leptonica - MinGW Windows Leptonica library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961406 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Taking for review - The mingw_build_win32/mingw_build_win64 globals don't have to be set any more - The BR: mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem needs to be versioned to = 95 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vc4lxQWxkya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968599] Review Request: nodejs-esprima - ECMAScript parsing infrastructure for multipurpose analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968599 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora | |project.org)| --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Thanks for the review! Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodejs-esprima.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm * Fri May 31 2013 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 1.0.3-2 - add comment about how man pages were generated - add comment about downloading of test directory It seems to me that the GitHub guidelines are there more to prevent use of the auto-generated tarballs, so I'm not sure it really applies in this case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EN9JLvVzBRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911023] Review Request: nodejs-ain2 - A Node.js module for syslog logging (and a continuation of ain)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911023 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Mock build rawhide: + /usr/bin/node test/integration.js events.js:72 throw er; // Unhandled 'error' event ^ Error: bind Unknown system errno 92 at errnoException (dgram.js:440:11) at dgram.js:207:28 at dns.js:72:18 at process._tickCallback (node.js:415:13) at Function.Module.runMain (module.js:499:11) at startup (node.js:119:16) at node.js:901:3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HmJj5AO8UJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest-cpp.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #18 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- Thank you Björn and Michael. Updated SPEC and SRPM: Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest-cpp.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest-cpp-1.4-9.20130509gitc42e68b.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=omXoVnVqeGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858082] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qttranslations - Qt5 for Windows - QtTranslations component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858082 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tHXiLWt82Ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858082] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qttranslations - Qt5 for Windows - QtTranslations component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858082 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gCJaZPdWPHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961402] Review Request: mingw-giflib - MinGW Windows giflib library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961402 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Taking for review Only one remark: The mingw_build_win32/mingw_build_win64 globals don't have to be set any more -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vw9NSUlaTRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CDCSFKHkUla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rXaSW5bCR4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968229] Review Request: python-testresources - Testresources, a pyunit extension for managing expensive test resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968229 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=C5DCcnYnA2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
