[Bug 969931] New: Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969931 Bug ID: 969931 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tchollingswo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-better-assert.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-better-assert-1.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5457287 FAS: patches Description: C-style assert() for Node.js, reporting the expression string as the error message. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lyuuZgxYy1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969931] Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969931 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||968919, 956806 ||(nodejs-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E1n1Hl0hU7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969931] Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969931 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||969929 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wmzGrCtf9Ta=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 #39 from Gang Wei gang@intel.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: oat Short Description: Attestation Service Host Agent based on OpenAttestation SDK Owners: gwei3 Branches: f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gLKDpFuAIQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969933] New: Review Request: nodejs-github-url-from-git - Parse a GitHub git URL and return the github repo URL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969933 Bug ID: 969933 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-github-url-from-git - Parse a GitHub git URL and return the github repo URL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tchollingswo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-github-url-from-git.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-github-url-from-git-1.1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji: not done; missing BuildRequires FAS: patches Description: Parse a GitHub git URL and return the github repo URL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SuOOD9UuBVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969931] Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969931 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||969933 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AoqwEUk0Iia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969933] Review Request: nodejs-github-url-from-git - Parse a GitHub git URL and return the GitHub repo URL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969933 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||968919, 956806 ||(nodejs-reviews) Depends On||969931 Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-github-url-from-git |nodejs-github-url-from-git |- Parse a GitHub git URL|- Parse a GitHub git URL |and return the github repo |and return the GitHub repo |URL |URL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QLWpJ9Zn4Wa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969938] New: Review Request: nodejs-normalize-package-data - Normalizes npm/package.json metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969938 Bug ID: 969938 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-normalize-package-data - Normalizes npm/package.json metadata Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tchollingswo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-normalize-package-data.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-normalize-package-data-0.1.6-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji: not done; missing BuildRequires FAS: patches Description: normalize-package data exports a function that normalizes package metadata. This data is typically found in a package.json file, but in principle could come from any source - for example the npm registry. normalize-package-data is used by read-package-json to normalize the data it reads from a package.json file. In turn, read-package-json is used by npm and various npm-related tools. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=T6a8w2Tle0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969933] Review Request: nodejs-github-url-from-git - Parse a GitHub git URL and return the GitHub repo URL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969933 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||969938 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LUtQmPvYdaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969938] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-package-data - Normalizes npm/package.json metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969938 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||968919, 956806 ||(nodejs-reviews) Depends On||969933 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KyYBMDHZBAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969929] Review Request: nodejs-callsite - Provides access to V8's raw CallSites from Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969929 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||969931 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y3L2IkubLoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969631] Review Request: dlib - A general purpose cross-platform C++ library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969631
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Summary:A general purpose cross-platform C++ library
In Anaconda and package tools, which display these summaries, it looks better
(and more concise) when omitting these leading articles.
License:Boost and Public Domain
I'm not sure about the and here. Please add a comment to the spec file, which
explains this licensing scenario.
$ grep -i public domain * -R|egrep -v '(html|examples|tools)'
dlib/general_hash/murmur_hash3.h:// in the public domain. The author
hereby disclaims copyright to this source code.
The murmur_hash3.h file applies the Boost license and copyright in its preamble
and mentions modifications by the library author. As such it cannot be assumed
that the entire file remains in the public domain. Therefore the lib is
License: Boost only.
Several examples contain a public domain header and refer to the separate
LICENSE_FOR_EXAMPLE_PROGRAMS.txt file. As the entire examples tree is
packaged in the -doc file, the -doc file could apply a different License tag
than the base package.
The tools/mltool program is in the public domain, but not built or
packaged.
* The test build.log warns about missing build requirements. X11, BLAS. What's
up there?
* Is the included regression test suite suitable for the %check section?
%install
pushd %{name}
rm -rf CMakeFiles/ cmake* Makefile
popd
That's a perfect opportunity for a comment that explains why this is done. ;-)
%packagedoc
Summary:Documentation for the %{name}
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Independent documentation -doc packages typically don't require the base
package. It should be possible to install documentation without having to
install a program and all its dependencies.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K7rhJsLCaEa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969877] Review Request: rubygem-timers - Schedule procs to run after a certain time, or at periodic intervals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969877 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- I'll take it for a review and I can sponsor you as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gjgyPmhxgGa=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 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- %package devel Requires: cmake That's an unusually strict dependency for a -devel package. Note that it also includes a pkgconfig file, so clearly it does not _need_ cmake. If the dep is just for directory ownership, you're free to own the cmake dir: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Bvx7CRPPHPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961384] Review Request: vim-javabrowser - JavaBrowser plugin for VIM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961384 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- Not doing a full review, just a few comments: * missing description * Group tag is not really used/needed anymore * Why do you need Requires(post[un]): vim? There are no post[un] scriptlets * %defattr macro is not needed either -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9trfdM7HEwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969877] Review Request: rubygem-timers - Schedule procs to run after a certain time, or at periodic intervals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969877
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Axilleas Pipinellis from comment #0)
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/axilleas/fedora/blob/master/packages/rubygem-timers/
rubygem-timers-1.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm?raw=true
This is a bit weird URL. The one you provided for the .spec file is more wget
friendly. This is just convenience remark ;)
* Summary vs Description
- Don't you have summary and description fields swapped? Summary is typically
brief version of Description, while you have it the opposite way. Also the
summary provided by upstream is Pure Ruby one-shot and periodic timers
IMO, while you have this text in description.
* Test suite
- pushd . makes no sense IMO.
- It would be better to do push .%{gem_instdir} instead. Currently, you are
testing the unpacked version of gem, i.e. the gem as is unpacked in %prep
section. That works for plain Ruby gem, but you could not use this approach
for binary gem, since you would miss the compiled extension.
Otherwise, the package looks good.
However, prior I sponsor you and since this is trivial package, could you
please take look on some other packages and do some informal review of them?
You can finish their review later, once officially sponsored. Thanks.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DAgXfcNE91a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969971] New: Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969971 Bug ID: 969971 Summary: Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/bridge-method-injector.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/bridge-method-injector-1.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package contains small Java library for generating synthetic bridge methods with different return types to help backward compatibility. Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NrpXgEBnHNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969971] Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969971 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=69QinEJv5va=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969971] Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969971 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- would like to take this review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=S6cGiaxIjwa=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
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English
[Bug 966139] Review Request: easy-rsa - Simple shell based CA utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966139 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||puiterw...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@gmail.com --- I will review this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vPts6qEkD1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969971] Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969971
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 bridge-
method-injector-javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/969971-bridge-
method-injector/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of
[Bug 961384] Review Request: vim-javabrowser - JavaBrowser plugin for VIM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961384 --- Comment #2 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/vim-javabrowser/vim-javabrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/vim-javabrowser/vim-javabrowser-2.03-2.fc18.src.rpm Issues where fixed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BwuiFJHdaXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969971] Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969971 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bridge-method-injector Short Description: Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk tradej Branches: f19 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=B59YgWBjiUa=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 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openid4java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/openid4java-0.9.8-1.fc18.src.rpm - fixed release tag - remove findbug patch and -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openid4java Short Description: This library allows you to OpenID-enable your Java web-app Owners: gil Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tmvepQhp14a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882474] Review Request: spymemcached - Java client for memcached
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882474 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@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=ogLJUh60I7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969929] Review Request: nodejs-callsite - Provides access to V8's raw CallSites from Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969929
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[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 attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should
[Bug 969929] Review Request: nodejs-callsite - Provides access to V8's raw CallSites from Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969929 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WaPusxYW1Ha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969929] Review Request: nodejs-callsite - Provides access to V8's raw CallSites from Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969929 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. This is only a should, so package approved! (Also, I already opened an issue upstream about the LICENSE file a week ago, which I've just closed now in favour of your pull request :P ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZvvnJIfEgWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969992] New: Review Request: jastow - Jasper fork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969992 Bug ID: 969992 Summary: Review Request: jastow - Jasper fork Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgold...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jastow/1/jastow.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jastow/1/jastow-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc20.src.rpm Description: The Jasper fork for Undertow Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5457535 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YppCbiv9pda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969992] Review Request: jastow - Jasper fork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969992 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=G3tnJyjIm0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969931] Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969931
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[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 attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor,
[Bug 969931] Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969931 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Looks good, 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=xWVMVuxs1Na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969933] Review Request: nodejs-github-url-from-git - Parse a GitHub git URL and return the GitHub repo URL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969933
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
==
nodejs-github-url-from-git.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repo -
rope, rep, reps
I suppose 'repo' is common enough, but I'd change this to 'repository'.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[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 attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary
[Bug 969933] Review Request: nodejs-github-url-from-git - Parse a GitHub git URL and return the GitHub repo URL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969933 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Assuming you fix the spelling mentioned above, 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=buNeneQX2na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890771] Review Request: edje - Abstract GUI layout and animation object library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890771 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GYlElSJlr3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969992] Review Request: jastow - Jasper fork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969992 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mizde...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I'm not doing formal review (yet), just adding my comment. 1) Why don'y you use downloadable tarball? Github can generate tarballs for every tag, commit or branch, for example: http://github.com/undertow-io/jastow/archive/1.0.0.Alpha1.tar.gz Using downloadable tarball would ease maintenance, but also review (as I won't have to recreate the tarbal manually - automated tools can review sources if full tarball URL is given). 2) Explicit package requires are usually unneeded if you are using %mvn_build/%mvn_install. Did you check automatically generated package requires? They should be correct and complete. If not then you may have a bug in the POM file (missing dep) or there might be a bug in XMvn, in which case I would like to hear that. In either case you most likely can remove explicit Requires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hYTsONkzC1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969938] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-package-data - Normalizes npm/package.json metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969938
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
||g
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[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 attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor,
[Bug 969938] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-package-data - Normalizes npm/package.json metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969938 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- All the spelling warnings can be ignored. 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=2bfG1EgNKMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967689] Review Request: tsung - A distributed multi-protocol load testing tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967689 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #1) I'll review it So? Any results? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CRJXWANQFWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970009] New: Review Request: stoken - Token code generator compatible with RSA SecurID 128-bit (AES) token
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970009 Bug ID: 970009 Summary: Review Request: stoken - Token code generator compatible with RSA SecurID 128-bit (AES) token Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativ...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/stoken.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/stoken-0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Software Token for Linux/UNIX. It's a token code generator compatible with RSA SecurID 128-bit (AES) tokens. It is a hobbyist project, not affiliated with or endorsed by RSA Security. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CC230gFRVxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970009] Review Request: stoken - Token code generator compatible with RSA SecurID 128-bit (AES) token
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970009 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||970002 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GBwoomsByPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970009] Review Request: stoken - Token code generator compatible with RSA SecurID 128-bit (AES) token
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970009 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Note: This package is required for enabling RSA software token support in openconnect, the Cisco AnyConnect VPN client. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dhfEX4gAYXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821283] Review Request: gsbase - A collection of java utility classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821283 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MBkhoNPQuUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822832] Review Request: josql - Library to apply SQL-like syntax to Java objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822832 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=wTCkZSPVeIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821283] Review Request: gsbase - A collection of java utility classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821283 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=6aG4xb0yfTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822832] Review Request: josql - Library to apply SQL-like syntax to Java objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822832 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YZQKpu2ayla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858066] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtgraphicaleffects - Qt5 for Windows - QtGraphicalEffects component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858066 --- 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=afusfY8DvWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858066] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtgraphicaleffects - Qt5 for Windows - QtGraphicalEffects component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858066 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=W8NbsaegLka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868528] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-Constants - Constants for the libzmq library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868528 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=txWGItm3fda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868531] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 3.x library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868531 --- Comment #19 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=2CFu83EUyRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868528] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-Constants - Constants for the libzmq library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868528 --- 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=WNH6AiuuyCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868531] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ3 - Perl wrapper for the libzmq 3.x library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868531 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=oJgHICSkmra=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 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=d9CBDeNaKca=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 #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=eiDcks9w7aa=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 #8 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=DgGwOAVCRBa=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 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=8Z0uilLDfma=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 #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kA5YVgaO5ba=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 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=CvMClEXX1ta=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 #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ic86BTlrR1a=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 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=EKdDywHvvOa=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 --- 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=1RLQVLBd1qa=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 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=upGoweXrfHa=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 #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=2jtw1T3dXMa=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 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=f73rPCFOV1a=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 #40 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=rt0RhWoy53a=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 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=jfWmF5XFTwa=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 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=mqRmgi2wora=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967289] Review Request: python-plyvel - Python interface to the LevelDB embedded database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967289 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=82fcb7gFWYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967289] Review Request: python-plyvel - Python interface to the LevelDB embedded database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967289 --- 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=s3frhGNILxa=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 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=caEur1X2zPa=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 #8 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=MrOdv3O59ja=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 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=3WAfIIKsgKa=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 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dzrLTvFliJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967568] Review Request: mintmenu - Advanced Menu for the MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967568 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=PAC3iSdImla=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 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=nMo5D7bzK5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967568] Review Request: mintmenu - Advanced Menu for the MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967568 --- 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=LqZFBivWaNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968253] Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Offload browser profiles to RAM for speed a wear reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968253 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yoKhwxi71Na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968253] Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Offload browser profiles to RAM for speed a wear reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968253 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=OES9EQCUS6a=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 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=QMsEfEgoUFa=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 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tQ0rFzXSfIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969111] Review Request: libxdiff - Basic functionality to create difference/patches in binary and text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969111 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=2BU4i1GItWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969111] Review Request: libxdiff - Basic functionality to create difference/patches in binary and text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969111 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vZFEbaqF7La=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969703] Review Request: python-openid-cla - CLA extension for python-openid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969703 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=U3Xk14yCOka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969623] Review Request: libappindicator - Application indicators library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969623 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5WIfnxN2Sma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969623] Review Request: libappindicator - Application indicators library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969623 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=zwBYemJm5ya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969703] Review Request: python-openid-cla - CLA extension for python-openid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969703 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=ZAFjbRyqSda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969971] Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969971 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8iBKkZNfHla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969971] Review Request: bridge-method-injector - Evolve Java classes without breaking compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969971 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=DngnVuqQSHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920436] Review Request: rubygem-bootstrap-sass - Bootstrap, converted to Sass
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920436 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anujmo...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 967331 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fwBelFuUTAa=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 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IgfFJKlPtma=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 #25 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- SCM request complete. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zX1zkDH50xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967331] Review Request: rubygem-bootstrap-sass - Twitter Bootstrap in SASS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967331 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-06-03 06:32:57 --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 920436 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YUCe0qJBA1a=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 - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |unittest-cpp.spec - |unittest-cpp - Lightweight |Lightweight unit testing|unit testing framework for |framework for C++ |C++ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kihwZ9XRqSa=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 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Quoted from author: ss files are needed. They are Scheme sources and are needed by edelib-script. Later (2.1 svn version) they are used even more extensively by edelib-dbus-explorer tool. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tFIMb02ieYa=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 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=3VZl1u9HyCa=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 #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-4.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=n3JKNNvZGha=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 #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-4.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=UWT5dhKML9a=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 #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-4.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=20uapHWzvfa=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
--- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/freetiger/freetiger.spec
SRPM URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/freetiger/freetiger-5-2.fc19.src.rpm
%changelog
* Fri May 31 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 5-2
- devel shouldn't require cmake, owning %%{_libdir}/cmake is enough.
* Fri May 31 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 5-1
- Initial rpm release
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ip9iaLpPOva=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
