[Bug 976886] Review Request: python-ase - Atomic Simulation Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976886 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH) 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=oxkLgfDXKV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973084] Review Request: htmlcleaner - HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973084 --- Comment #26 from Björn Esser --- (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #25) > OK. i think i have those koji builds, what to do next, 'comps'? So all went fine so far and you now have ready-build pkgs for rawhide and F19. For rawhide your pkg gets imported automaticly after it's been built. If you're not familiar with `vim` as editor you probably want to use another, e.g. `nano`: `export EDITOR="$my_fav"` Replace $my_fav with your prefered editor. You can make this system-default by invoking `echo 'export EDITOR="$my_fav"' > /etc/profile.d/preferred_editor.sh` as root. For the F19 branch you need to tell "bodhi" to push it to the repo: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Submit_Package_as_Update_in_Bodhi `fedpkg switch-branch f19 ; fedpkg update` After invoking the commands your editor opens giving you a template to complete: [ htmlcleaner-2.2.1-2.fc19 ] # bugfix, security, enhancement, newpackage (required) type= <--- here goes the type of the update, in your case it's newpackage. enhancement is meant for new upstream release. bugfix and security are self explaining, I think. # testing, stable request=testing<--- keep the default here, directly pushing to stable repo is meant for really urgent security-fixes. (type=security) # Bug numbers: 1234,9876 bugs=973084,11 <--- just delete the `,11` here, bodhi will close your review-bug automatically then. See below. # Description of your update notes= <--- Here is where you give an explanation of your update. On newpkgs I'd propose %description, on enhancements or bugfixes %changelog. All in a row without manual line-breaks. # Enable request automation based on the stable/unstable karma thresholds autokarma=True <--- you can keep the defaults here. stable_karma=3 unstable_karma=-3 # Automatically close bugs when this marked as stable close_bugs=True<--- See above, bug numbers. # Suggest that users restart after update suggest_reboot=False <--- mostly needed for kernel-updates or some daemons. After you saved the modded template and close the editor your update-request will be send to bodhi. You'll need your FAS-password during progress. You can push your package to stable after 7 days in testing (bodhi will inform you by mail) or it gets auto-pushed when needed karma was reached (other packager-people may test your package and give +1/-1-votes). Adding libs to comps should be avoided, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_and_edit_comps.xml_for_package_groups?rd=PackageMaintainers/CompsXml#When_to_Edit_comps | Libraries should not be included - they will be pulled in via dependencies You surely want to add your package to Upstream Release Monitoring: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Watch_for_updates https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring?rd=Upstream_Release_Monitoring If your package is added there, you'll get a new bug opened on bugzilla informing you by mail, everytime there's a new upstream version released. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Iml4fY7alE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972224] Review Request: extlinux-bootloader - The EXTLINUX bootloader framework, for booting the local system.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972224 Dennis Gilmore changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-06-21 21:22:49 --- Comment #6 from Dennis Gilmore --- built and in -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WnsSWwqwXb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975590] Review Request: openstack-selinux - SELinux policies for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975590 --- Comment #5 from Steven Dake --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/lhh/openstack-selinux.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/lhh/openstack-selinux-0.1.2-11.el6ost.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=xwLVu04Dvh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911047] Review Request: nodejs-q - A tool for making and composing asynchronous promises in JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911047 --- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/nodejs-q.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/SRPMS/nodejs-q-0.9.6-1.fc19.src.rpm * Fri Jun 21 2013 Jamie Nguyen - 0.9.6-1 - update to upstream release 0.9.6 - add %%check and related BR %check section is missing dependencies so not yet enabled. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3kDsBJuvO2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911050] Review Request: nodejs-snockets - A JavaScript/CoffeeScript concatenation tool for Node.js inspired by Sprockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911050 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jamie Nguyen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-snockets Short Description: A JavaScript/CoffeeScript concatenation tool for Node.js inspired by Sprockets Owners: jamielinux patches 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=5vr7XiqpGD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976919] New: gnome-desktop-testing - a simple test runner for installed tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976919 Bug ID: 976919 Summary: gnome-desktop-testing - a simple test runner for installed tests Product: Fedora Version: 19 Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mcla...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org gnome-desktop-testing is a simple test runner for installed tests. See https://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/InstalledTests SRPM: http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/gnome-desktop-testing-2013.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Spec: http://mclasen.fedorapeople.org/gnome-desktop-testing.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Mi9TlXsY1m&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A6NClFc4hV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=AplZntNsgA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 Eric Harney changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Eric Harney --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-amqp Short Description: Low-level AMQP client for Python Owners: eharney Branches: 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=7yB55JXUKF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911050] Review Request: nodejs-snockets - A JavaScript/CoffeeScript concatenation tool for Node.js inspired by Sprockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911050
Marcelo Barbosa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Marcelo Barbosa ---
- Outputs rpmlint are false positives
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.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: 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. 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.
[-]: 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 61440 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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:
[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]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: La
[Bug 951496] Review Request: gimp-lensfun - gimp plugin to correct lens distortion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951496 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: gimplensfun |Review Request: |- gimp plugin to correct|gimp-lensfun - gimp plugin |lens distortion |to correct lens distortion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e5dbIhHGXh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911047] Review Request: nodejs-q - A tool for making and composing asynchronous promises in JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911047 --- Comment #3 from Marcelo Barbosa --- Jamie, Please see two issues: [!]: Latest version is packaged. https://github.com/kriskowal/q/blob/master/CHANGES.md [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Verify if possible "%check" in your package Marcelo Barbosa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SKwmRLnEse&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975590] Review Request: openstack-selinux - SELinux policies for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975590 Lon Hohberger changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #4 from Lon Hohberger --- I updated the spec file and source RPM to -11 with the requirement. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0jvuC2exgu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 --- Comment #5 from Rahul Sundaram --- Just as a note for future reviews, you are expected to bump up the spec and post the new srpm and spec instead of replacing the copy inline which makes it harder to differentiate but the changes themselves look fine. == 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=wXP4W4Tf2v&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783016] Review Request: pilas - A simple to use video game framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783016 --- Comment #9 from morphe...@fedoraproject.org --- I want to continue with the package and I need your help and guide to finish it. This week I'll upload the new file spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gVJD4VYp7m&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714
--- Comment #22 from Michael Schwendt ---
Re: comment 19
Take a look at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
and notice what it says towards the bottom of that section:
| There are a few exceptions to the no underscore '_' rule.
|
| [...]
| * packages where the upstream name naturally contains an underscore
| are excluded from this. Examples of these packages include:
|
| [...]
|
| If in doubt, ask on fedora-devel-list.
# rpm -qa --qf %{n}\\n \*_\*|sort
libart_lgpl
libcom_err
libini_config
libipa_hbac
libnetfilter_conntrack
libpath_utils
libref_array
libsss_idmap
microcode_ctl
pam_krb5
pam_pkcs11
python-backports-ssl_match_hostname
sg3_utils-libs
tcp_wrappers
tcp_wrappers-libs
usb_modeswitch
usb_modeswitch-data
wpa_supplicant
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NAL0TlA7kO&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714 --- Comment #21 from Marcelo Barbosa --- Srinivas, Besides the name also confer the other problem(%check) your source have dir "/test" but your spec file no. Marcelo Barbosa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O6bzxypo4A&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844721] Review request: python-django-flash - A Django extension to provide support for Rails-like flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721 --- Comment #32 from Michael Schwendt --- Not yet. Please read comment 30. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ucftOOyXWU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919851] Review Request: ghc-IfElse - Anaphoric and miscellaneous useful control-flow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919851 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-IfElse-0.85-1.fc17 |ghc-IfElse-0.85-1.el6 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-IfElse-0.85-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5FlUbgyPYj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959509] Review Request: trac10 - Enhanced wiki and issue tracking system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959509 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||trac10-1.0.1-4.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-06-21 15:39:24 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- trac10-1.0.1-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8EFWBE2gvn&a=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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-testrepository-0.0.1 |python-testrepository-0.0.1 |5-4.fc19|5-4.el6 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- python-testrepository-0.0.15-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3er21HddK1&a=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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pythia8-8.1.76-3.fc18 |pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6, HepMC-2.06.09-3.el6, lhapdf-5.8.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gKJOXRwod3&a=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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6|pythia8-8.1.76-3.el5 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- pythia8-8.1.76-3.el5, HepMC-2.06.09-3.el5, lhapdf-5.8.9-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VgCEQwZvAj&a=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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6|pythia8-8.1.76-3.el5 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- pythia8-8.1.76-3.el5, HepMC-2.06.09-3.el5, lhapdf-5.8.9-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OyMiPd8EjF&a=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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pythia8-8.1.76-3.fc18 |pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6, HepMC-2.06.09-3.el6, lhapdf-5.8.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iW4VqVdP9J&a=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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6|pythia8-8.1.76-3.el5 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- pythia8-8.1.76-3.el5, HepMC-2.06.09-3.el5, lhapdf-5.8.9-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=evYkIyZPD8&a=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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|pythia8-8.1.76-3.fc18 |pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- pythia8-8.1.76-3.el6, HepMC-2.06.09-3.el6, lhapdf-5.8.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sI50uHtYMN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976442] Review Request: bugwarrior - Sync github, bitbucket, and trac issues with taskwarrior
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976442 --- Comment #5 from Marcelo Barbosa --- Patrick, Please see this is issues: [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Legend: [!] = Fail Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Marcelo Barbosa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HUaOkqfOMP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949324] Review Request: oath-toolkit - One-time password components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949324 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|oath-toolkit-2.0.2-3.fc18 |oath-toolkit-2.0.2-3.el6 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- oath-toolkit-2.0.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gyCERU4Yue&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947071] Review Request: monitorix - A free, open source, lightweight system monitoring tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947071 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|monitorix-3.2.0-2.fc18 |monitorix-3.2.1-1.el6 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- monitorix-3.2.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=G5TiGnYqCM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964143] Review Request: python-testscenarios - Testscenarios, a pyunit extension for dependency injection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964143 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-testscenarios-0.4-2. |python-testscenarios-0.4-2. |fc19|el6 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-testscenarios-0.4-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bJRarva0es&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973084] Review Request: htmlcleaner - HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973084 --- Comment #25 from marcin.du...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #24) > (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #23) > > see already few interesting candidates for review there > > So you may want to add yourself to CC of the bugs tracking changes: > > * go to the bug > * check the "Add me to CC list" > * --> "Save changes" > > > So, limb has setup the git-repo for importing your package. At this point > you want to make sure having > > * installed the pkg from "fedora-packager"-group: > `yum groups install fedora-packager` > > * have imported your rsa pub-key into your account: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/edit/marcindulak > > * have run `fedora-packager-setup` and imported the generated > certificate into your browser, so you can login into koji: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/index > > After you have completed these steps. You should follow the instructions > shown in the wiki: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Check_out_the_module > > Some overview for advanced use of `fedpkg` is given here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_git_FAQ_for_package_maintainers > > If you have any questions or problems feel free to ask me! OK. i think i have those koji builds, what to do next, 'comps'? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xiSgLcpQS5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844721] Review request: python-django-flash - A Django extension to provide support for Rails-like flash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721 --- Comment #31 from Luis Bazan --- https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5645#comment:1 Now is blocked I can close this BZ? Regards! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=APeuyWOfkX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736861] Review Request: hgview - A fast Mercurial log navigator for qt4 or curses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736861 --- Comment #23 from Mads Kiilerich --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #22) Hmm ... yeah ... nothing owns /usr/lib/.../hgext on x86_64 ... but it is owned on x86. Mercurial on x86_64 doesn't look in /usr/lib/.../hgext at all so it would be strange if Mercurial owned that directory. For almost the same reasons my sample hg config for this extension uses an absolute path. This hgview.py should perhaps just be stored in the ordinary hgview directory instead of in an hgext directory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W58KdhhFtz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714 --- Comment #20 from Christopher Meng --- IMO If I package this program, I'll name it to thermals. And I found the service file is also named thermald. Underscore is bad, yes. So just change them, and define a new macro like: %global pkgname thermal_daemon Then use this new macro in SourceURL and other places. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gB2r7i02a6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976886] New: Review Request: python-ase - Atomic Simulation Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976886 Bug ID: 976886 Summary: Review Request: python-ase - Atomic Simulation Environment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcin.du...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ase/v02/python-ase.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ase/v02/python-ase-3.7.1.3184-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE) is the common part of the simulation tools developed at CAMd. ASE provides Python modules for manipulating atoms, analyzing simulations, visualization etc. Fedora Account System Username: marcindulak -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OV4i2Rmz7x&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 --- Comment #4 from Eric Harney --- (In reply to Rahul Sundaram from comment #1) > Are you targeting EPEL 5, 6 etc? Otherwise, the python macros, defattr > etc. If you are targeting EPEL, you might want to do a koji scratch build > on those and make sure it builds and works as intended. Yes, planning to build for EPEL 6. Scratch build is at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5528749 I think I have addressed all other concerns you flagged. SRPM and spec file have been updated in-place, with the old copies at http://fedorapeople.org/~eharney/python-amqp/old/ . Changes made can be seen here: http://fedorapeople.org/~eharney/python-amqp/review_changes.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=We3RkOUU7T&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736861] Review Request: hgview - A fast Mercurial log navigator for qt4 or curses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736861
--- Comment #22 from Michael Schwendt ---
> %files
> %{python_sitelib}/hgviewlib/qt4/
> %files -n %{name}-common
> %{python_sitelib}/hgext/%{name}.py*
%python_sitelib is below /usr/lib for x86_64, whereas mercurial.x86_64 stores
its extensions below /usr/lib64 => %python_sitearch:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=2518
It does not include %{python_sitelib}/hgext/ yet, but some package ought to own
it:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eVM7uTuFhw&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976442] Review Request: bugwarrior - Sync github, bitbucket, and trac issues with taskwarrior
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976442 Marcelo Barbosa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||echevemas...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mr.marcelo.barb...@gmail.co ||m 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=Sxal3AW7N7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 971103] Review Request: bsd-mailx - Simple mail user agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103 --- Comment #21 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf --- Hi Peter, We are almost there, can you please handle: %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT It's for EPEL5. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean Thanks Douglas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=llntqmni99&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976714] Review Request: python-sklearn - Machine learning in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976714 Marcelo Barbosa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||echevemas...@gmail.com, ||mr.marcelo.barb...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mr.marcelo.barb...@gmail.co ||m 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=3H1GZUg15g&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 965007] Review Request: gedit-trailsave - Gedit plugin who strip trailing whitespace on save
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965007 --- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt --- Comment on attachment 761229 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=761229 improved spec-file some good findings in there -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KUzjxSPahP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 948589] Review Request: bookkeeper - Apache BookKeeper sub-project of ZooKeeper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948589 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- bookkeeper-4.2.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bookkeeper-4.2.1-2.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=dMJZhXKTnE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847
Rahul Sundaram changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram ---
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.
[!]: 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
[-]: 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 python-
amqp-doc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rahul/976847-python-
amqp/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Note: doc sub-package seems to not include licensing info and demo examples
lack licensing as well.
[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 81920 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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).
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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on a
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 --- Comment #2 from Rahul Sundaram --- python-amqp-doc.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/python-amqp-doc-1.0.11/demo/demo_receive.py /usr/bin/env python-amqp-doc.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/python-amqp-doc-1.0.11/demo/demo_send.py /usr/bin/env python-amqp-doc.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/python-amqp-doc-1.0.11/demo/amqp_clock.py /usr/bin/env -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9uvn6YYVm5&a=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
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Name: canl-c++
> Group:Development/Libraries
"System Environment/Libraries" is the group for run-time library base packages.
The alternative is to not define the old Group tag anymore.
> %files devel
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
%defattr is not needed anymore for any of the active distribution releases.
> %{_libdir}/libcanl_c++.so
> %{_includedir}/%{name}/canlxx.h
Directory %{_includedir}/%{name} is not included.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kp607iqwfl&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 --- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram --- Are you targeting EPEL 5, 6 etc? Otherwise, the python macros, defattr etc. If you are targeting EPEL, you might want to do a koji scratch build on those and make sure it builds and works as intended. Please add a comment on top of sed -i s/^extensions/disable_extensions/ conf.py explaining why you are doing 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=TA9xlM53mM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 gil cattaneo 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=mEPKK94rkR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo ---
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 jboss-
jms-2.0-api-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:
"Unknown or generated". 81 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: 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 %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]:
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 Eric Harney changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||974684 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RaYIUpjK5O&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] New: Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 Bug ID: 976847 Summary: Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ehar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: methe...@gmail.com, nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org, pbr...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~eharney/python-amqp/python-amqp.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~eharney/python-amqp/python-amqp-1.0.11-1.f20.src.rpm Description: Low-level AMQP client for Python This is a fork of amqplib, maintained by the Celery project. This library should be API compatible with librabbitmq. This is a requirement for python-kombu in F20. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SvKtCkDJxI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714 Srinivas Pandruvada changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4n6BCyqoJP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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=9sjrRkc4bj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714 --- Comment #19 from Srinivas Pandruvada --- Also For the package naming guidlines: - Common Character Set for Package Naming : Meets this requirment When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project: Meets this requirment When naming packages for Fedora, the maintainer must use the dash '-' as the delimiter for name parts. The maintainer must NOT use an underscore '_', a plus '+', or a period '.' as a delimiter. Version numbers used in compat libraries do not need to omit the dot '.' or change it into a dash '-': This seems to be issue. The problem is that if remove underscore here, then it will not match the upstream tar ball name. What can be done about this? Thanks for your help and patience. Thanks, Srinivas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8sI4lAwu5j&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714 --- Comment #18 from Srinivas Pandruvada --- Hi Marcelo, What is the failure "[!]: %check is present and all tests pass." means? Thanks, Srinivas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qaMvqyaA2l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911058] Review Request: nodejs-url2 - The Node.js URL module plus relative pathing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911058 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-06-21 11:22:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iCoMdnSg0a&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911048] Review Request: nodejs-q-io - Interfaces for IO using Q promises in JavaScript on Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911048 Bug 911048 depends on bug 911058, which changed state. Bug 911058 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-url2 - The Node.js URL module plus relative pathing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911058 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Lp4H04VJkL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976793] Review Request: Lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- I already renamed it to libLunchbox. It would be great if upstream could change the project name. I will ask them about 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=GJKyhXgoYv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967234] Review Request: angleproject - Almost Native Graphics Layer Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967234 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter --- FYI, licensing is ok, those GPL (v3 or later) items from licensecheck are from bison, and include the text: /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public License without this special exception. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 2.2 of Bison. */ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bYTun1D7c6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915909] Review Request: qt5-qtdeclarative - Qt5 - QtDeclarative component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915909 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter --- imported, waiting on qt5-qtjsbackend review (bug #915903 ) before doing any builds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZmUKnSu4MY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 --- Comment #26 from Rex Dieter --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtwebkit.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5/qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.2-6.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Jun 21 2013 Rex Dieter 5.0.2-6 - %%doc ChangeLog VERSION - %%doc Source/WebCore/LICENSE* - squash more rpaths -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lArbmUO9jD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973084] Review Request: htmlcleaner - HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973084 --- Comment #24 from Björn Esser --- (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #23) > see already few interesting candidates for review there So you may want to add yourself to CC of the bugs tracking changes: * go to the bug * check the "Add me to CC list" * --> "Save changes" So, limb has setup the git-repo for importing your package. At this point you want to make sure having * installed the pkg from "fedora-packager"-group: `yum groups install fedora-packager` * have imported your rsa pub-key into your account: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/edit/marcindulak * have run `fedora-packager-setup` and imported the generated certificate into your browser, so you can login into koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/index After you have completed these steps. You should follow the instructions shown in the wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Check_out_the_module Some overview for advanced use of `fedpkg` is given here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_git_FAQ_for_package_maintainers If you have any questions or problems feel free to ask me! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MgzwC7gOGY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911058] Review Request: nodejs-url2 - The Node.js URL module plus relative pathing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911058 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-url2-0.0.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-url2-0.0.0-2.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=hYaUtZLo3S&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911058] Review Request: nodejs-url2 - The Node.js URL module plus relative pathing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911058 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-url2-0.0.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-url2-0.0.0-2.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=cl9uIUAD9G&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911058] Review Request: nodejs-url2 - The Node.js URL module plus relative pathing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911058 Fedora Update System 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=kWyajZ92BT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 948589] Review Request: bookkeeper - Apache BookKeeper sub-project of ZooKeeper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948589
--- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt ---
> %files -n libhedwig-devel
> %dir %{_includedir}/hedwig-*/hedwig
> %{_includedir}/hedwig-*/hedwig/*.h
Directory %{_includedir}/hedwig-* is not included.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
You might want to give this %files section a second though and either make it
more explicit (= less wildcards + spell out specific header names to expect a
specific API) or simply include the full tree starting at the top directory
with a single entry:
%files -n libhedwig-devel
%{_includedir}/hedwig-*/
Then all directories are included properly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Sg6rEkuhN2&a=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 #9 from Adrien Devresse --- koji builds : rawhide : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5528023 f19 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5528034 EL6 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5528026 EL5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5528030 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Dhtd69V3V0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 --- Comment #25 from Rex Dieter --- Re: licensing $ licensecheck -r * | cut -d' ' -f2 | sort | uniq -c 7 Apache 9097 BSD 3 BSL 22 GENERATED 6 GPL 1 ISC 2946 LGPL 6 MIT/X11 30 MPL 451 *No 1 Public 492 UNKNOWN 3 zlib/libpng Of these, zlib is only used in configure tests, and only MPL is GPL incompatible (but ok, since all the MPL licensed files are also dual licensed GPL/LGPL). There are a small handful of Qt-standard licensed files. So... when all is said and done, the combined aggregate license still comes back to what we started with. Working on the other items now... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cgAB9K233Z&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973084] Review Request: htmlcleaner - HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973084 --- Comment #23 from marcin.du...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #21) > (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #20) > > yes, i was surprised i can do that myself. Thanks for fixing that! > > You're welcome! > > Yes, now you are a packager, you can, but mustn't do on your own packages. > :) You can take official reviews for other packagers, too. The comments > you made in [1] look really good and taking this to full review && approval > sounds like a good start. OK > > You may want to install the `fedora-review` package providing all basic > stuff needed. This is a half-automated tool checking some stuff, but may > report false-positives or miss some. It doesn't check everything, so some > manual work will be needed either. already using fedora-review, it helps a lot. > > An introduction about the review process you can find here. [2] And here's > [3] a list with packages waiting for review; those with green bg need review > by a packager-sponsor. > > [1] bz #961180 > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines > [3] http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html see already few interesting candidates for review there -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=V5Qv2Fk6Fr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927237] Review Request: owfs - 1-Wire Virtual File System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927237 --- Comment #13 from Tomasz Torcz --- What a dumb mistake of mine! Corrected. It is so trivial that I've remade SRPM without bumping release. Please redownload from ttorcz.fedorapeople.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=gkbDARRiAt&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer - Middleware to create and deploy parallel OpenGL-based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 --- Comment #18 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- The 1.4.1 requires Lunchbox as dependency. I packaged it, bug 976793. I will also ask upstream whether it is possible to rename it to libLunchbox (I already used this name). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OkCFHQiemA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976777] Review Request: nodejs-i2c - Node.js native bindings for i2c-dev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976777
Jamie Nguyen 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 ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
nodejs-i2c.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/node_modules/i2c/build/Release/i2c.node 0775L
Needs to be 0755.
You might also consider doing fixdep repl '~0.1.3'.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: 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. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/mockbuild/review/nodejs-
i2c/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD qu
[Bug 758472] Review Request: Equalizer - Middleware to create and deploy parallel OpenGL-based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 Jaroslav Škarvada changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||976793 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ll86WLCz1n&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976793] New: Review Request: Lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 Bug ID: 976793 Summary: Review Request: Lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 758472 Spec URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libLunchbox.spec SRPM URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libLunchbox-1.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, utility classes and high-performance primitives, such as atomic variables, spin locks and lock-free containers. It is needed by Equalizer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=S2fmS8EXB6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915144] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144
Björn Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Björn Esser ---
Package has issues, see below.
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
Note: desktop file(s) in rasmol, rasmol-gtk
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
---> false positive: no mime-type in desktop-file
- bogus date in %changelog: Wed Mar 14 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2.7.5-7
- bogus date in %changelog: Thu Mar 13 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2.7.5-6
- bogus date in %changelog: Thu Mar 13 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2.7.5-5
---> fix this, please
- manual-page-warning rasmol.1x.gz 1: warning: macro `PU' not defined
- manual-page-warning rasmol.1x.gz 4119: warning: macro `false',' not defined
---> please fix this, e.g. with patch
- rasmol.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol-2.7.5/GPL
---> please inform upstream and ask for including recent rev.
of that document
- more issues to be found in inline-comments of report
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
---> LDFLAGS are ommitted on linking
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
---> bogus dates, see above
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rasmol-doc
---> false positve: doc-subpkg is noarch and should not require binaries
[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:
"LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
generated". 97 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/915144-rasmol/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
---> add %doc GPL to -doc-pkg
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required
Note: icons in rasmol
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 481280 bytes in 20 files.
---> you should move all %doc, but GPL, to doc-pkg
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using deskt
[Bug 957693] Review Request: gfal2-python - Python bindings for gfal 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957693 --- Comment #8 from Adrien Devresse --- Updates bis ( link update ) SRPM: http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python-1.2.1-1.el5.centos.src.rpm SPEC : http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=orUjchossc&a=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 #7 from Adrien Devresse --- Thank you for your comments Mario > The library is private in terms of not intended to be present in a common > library path. It has to become "invisible". See > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering for > how to do so. Done > This is vaild for EPEL 5, and *only* for that branch. Of course, you can > leave it as is for el5. But for all newer releases, a doc package which > contains no binaries should be noarch. Fix the other issues, and I will do > the final review. I resolved the issue by excluding the BuildArch: noarch with a conditional on EL5. Several packages like json-c uses the same approach. > Keep in mind, different branches need different spec files in certain cases. > Have a look at the guidelines where are some special parts for EPEL 5 which > are not intended to be entrained through all newer branches. Times have > changed ;) Yes, but even in this case I prefer use only one spec file with conditionals statements instead of branching my spec. And I'm not preferring this just in to contradict you or because I'm lazy :) With the frequency of our updates and the number of our the grid middlewares components, it's just impossible to maintain without becoming mad if we start to branch for each plateform. Updates : SRPM: grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python-1.2.1-1.el5.centos.src.rpm SPEC : grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-python-1.2.1-1.el5.centos.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=iRCWVwAmjV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976767] Review Request: nodejs-repl - A lightweight templating library for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976767 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen --- 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=d4Be89E710&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976767] Review Request: nodejs-repl - A lightweight templating library for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976767
Jamie Nguyen 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 ---
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]: 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.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: 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 2 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:
[x]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]
[Bug 927237] Review Request: owfs - 1-Wire Virtual File System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927237
--- Comment #12 from Lorenzo Dalrio ---
Hi Tomasz,
my build attempt failed with error:
error: Missing '(' in %attr {0755,-,-,-)
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ow/_OW.so
Please can you fix this? :)
Thank you
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LbVQLk0eCH&a=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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-21 09:00:50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VbEoOlyEod&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974134] Review Request: idlj-maven-plugin - The CORBA IDL Compiler Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974134 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-21 09:00:37 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wL04sB9WS0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cbot3lroK9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XXFPNowsLe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974145] Review Request: bluez5 - Bluetooth v5 utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974145 Don Zickus changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(bnoc...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #8 from Don Zickus --- Hi Kalev, I think the API is so different, that Bastien wanted to seperate the packages. I'll leave it to him to comment. The seperation is really his work. Cheers, Don -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fA4XuZ7zVJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 Marek Goldmann 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=jsDC7eMNAq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976777] New: Review Request: nodejs-i2c - Node.js native bindings for i2c-dev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976777 Bug ID: 976777 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-i2c - Node.js native bindings for i2c-dev Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tchollingswo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org, pbrobin...@gmail.com Depends On: 976767 Blocks: 956806 (nodejs-reviews) Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/nodejs-i2c.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/nodejs-i2c-0.1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5527956 FAS: patches Description: Node.js native bindings for i2c-dev. Plays well with Raspberry Pi and Beaglebone. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UAB7V3phoy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976767] Review Request: nodejs-repl - A lightweight templating library for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976767 T.C. Hollingsworth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||976777 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aE60B3KMSZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] New: Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 Bug ID: 976776 Summary: Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec 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/jboss-jms-2.0-api/1/jboss-jms-2.0-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jms-2.0-api/1/jboss-jms-2.0-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha1.fc19.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: The Java Messaging Service 2.0 API classes Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5527934 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=typbmztUST&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970641] Review Request: jboss-servlet-3.1-api - Java Servlet 3.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970641 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-21 08:14:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jRY817MtAs&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 --- Comment #8 from Vít Ondruch --- IOW -1 will be just fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tlkTY9UFbk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 --- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch --- (In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #5) > So do you want that changelog changed and retain -1 release or -2 bumped? I hope you don't need a review for the changelog change, so no reason to bump the 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=qIhdLSijJa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 Jan Pazdziora changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jan Pazdziora --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-gssapi Short Description: A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library Owners: adelton Branches: 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=hoO0FV9aLy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972605] Review Request: ghc-extensible-exceptions - Extensible exceptions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972605 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_DEV |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-extensible-exceptions-0 ||.1.1.4-12.fc20 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-21 08:10:57 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen --- Built for F20 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=i3GJ1MtB85&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976770] Review Request: sstp-client - Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976770 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amueh...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 875450 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=fGgDCr51J7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976770] New: Review Request: sstp-client - Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976770 Bug ID: 976770 Summary: Review Request: sstp-client - Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Client 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/sstp-client.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/sstp-client-1.0.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is a client for the Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol, SSTP. It can be used to establish a SSTP connection to a Windows Server. 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=6JGTLnAqwe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964072] Review Request: ghc-text - An efficient packed Unicode text type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964072 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_DEV |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-text-0.11.3.1-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-21 08:09:16 --- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen --- Built for f20 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=eYwNNrueaD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875450] Review Request: sstp-client - SSL based VPN to Microsoft Infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875450 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-06-21 08:09:27 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 976770 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rQXsXN3ZS3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974350] Review Request: nodejs-http-signature - Reference implementation of Joyent's HTTP Signature Scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974350 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qbiF1Bcqxa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
