[Bug 978010] Review Request: perl-Wx-GLCanvas - Interface to wxWidgets' OpenGL canvas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978010 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6pwaBGi412a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892597] Review Request: glite-lb-types - Build-time component for gLite LB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892597 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Taking the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4Fyblk8HTwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855780] Review Request: apacheds-daemon - Reusable Daemon Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855780 Bug 855780 depends on bug 977901, which changed state. Bug 977901 Summary: java-service-wrapper: Wrong installation directory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977901 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RLgOvOkFFUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855780] Review Request: apacheds-daemon - Reusable Daemon Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855780 Bug 855780 depends on bug 977904, which changed state. Bug 977904 Summary: java-service-wrapper: Please install Maven POM file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977904 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=H6ytzGYaPFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890771] Review Request: edje - Abstract GUI layout and animation object library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890771 --- Comment #8 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/edje.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/edje-1.7.7-2.fc19.src.rpm Description: Abstract GUI layout and animation object library. Added mime db scriptlets. Owned datadir/edje Will submit patches to upstream regarding incorrect FSF address. Not sure why mock build fails. Works fine on Koji. Not sure about m4, didn't see anything on the link, will look into it further. Large datadir folder.. looks like lots of docs, disabled them for now and will split the package. $ rpmlint edje.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint edje-1.7.7-2.fc19.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [dan@Fedora19 x86_64]$ rpmlint edje-* edje.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edje_recc edje.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edje_cc edje.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edje_inspector edje.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edje_decc edje.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edje_player edje.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edje_external_inspector edje-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary inkscape2edc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5545300 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8xxWJOwChya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913254] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-newlib - C library intended for use on arm-none-eabi embedded systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913254 Pavel Zhukov pzhu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||977986 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XUsXn1vBWIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 965570] Review Request: cbmc - Bounded Model Checker for ANSI-C and C++ programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965570 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED 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=Lcce0ioAYfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978284] New: Review Request: rubygem-redis - A Ruby client library for Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978284 Bug ID: 978284 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-redis - A Ruby client library for Redis Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: axill...@archlinux.gr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-redis/rubygem-redis.spec SRPM URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-redis/rubygem-redis-3.0.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A Ruby client that tries to match Redis' API one-to-one, while still providing an idiomatic interface. It features thread-safety, client-side sharding, pipelining, and an obsession for performance. Fedora Account System Username: axilleas -- koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5539385 (Although, it fails as it cannot open a netcat connection needed by one of tests, will refer about this on devel) Other useful logs (rpmlint, mock): http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-redis/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WShJi8L6SGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976793] Review Request: libLunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Rest assured, it wouldn't be the first project to do that. Project name foo releases library with SONAME libfoo.so.N in tarball libfoo with headers in /usr/include/foo (#include foo/blubb.h) and using root directories such as /usr/share/foo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1Lqu0eDE93a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977646] Review Request: mylvmbackup - Utility for creating MySQL backups via LVM snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977646 marcin.du...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||marcin.du...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|marcin.du...@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=gaE7zesU8Ea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958094] Review Request: movgrab - An online video downloader in console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958094 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2013-06-26 06:45:22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L37LuvkGema=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #23 from marcin.du...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- No %config files under /usr.
Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mylvmbackupproject=home%3ALenzGr
, but we can't use %config under /usr in Fedora.
A solution could be to use, e.g.:
hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf
and create that dir in spec.
I guess one should communicate this choice upstream.
Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec
share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this
information in changelog.
= 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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
/etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by
(let's drop el5 - Requires: mysql):
el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs
f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ]: 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. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt
false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
see Package requires other packages for directories it uses. above
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
see No %config files under /usr. above
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #24 from marcin.du...@gmail.com ---
I'm sorry - discard it - wrong bug!
I(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #23)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- No %config files under /usr.
Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream
https://build.opensuse.org/package/
show?package=mylvmbackupproject=home%3ALenzGr , but we can't use %config
under /usr in Fedora.
A solution could be to use, e.g.:
hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf
and create that dir in spec.
I guess one should communicate this choice upstream.
Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec
share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this
information in changelog.
= 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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
/etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by
(let's drop el5 - Requires: mysql):
el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs
f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ]: 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. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt
false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
see Package requires other packages for directories it uses. above
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
see No %config files under /usr. above
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]:
[Bug 977646] Review Request: mylvmbackup - Utility for creating MySQL backups via LVM snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977646
--- Comment #1 from marcin.du...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- No %config files under /usr.
Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mylvmbackupproject=home%3ALenzGr
, but we can't use %config under /usr in Fedora.
A solution could be to use, e.g.:
hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf
and create that dir in spec.
I guess one should communicate this choice upstream.
Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec
share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this
information in changelog.
= 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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
/etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by:
el5: Requires: mysql
el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs
f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ]: 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. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt
false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
see Package requires other packages for directories it uses. above
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
see No %config files under /usr. above
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]:
[Bug 959647] Review Request: drupal7-l10n_pconfig - Plural formula configurator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959647
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5545724
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-l10n_pconfig.src: I: checking
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) configurator -
configuration, confiscator, figuration
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configurator
- configuration, confiscator, figuration
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Drupal -
Drupe
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pconfig -
configure
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.src: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/l10n_pconfig (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/l10n_pconfig-7.x-1.2.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) configurator -
configuration, confiscator, figuration
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
configurator - configuration, confiscator, figuration
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Drupal -
Drupe
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pconfig -
configure
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/l10n_pconfig (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-l10n_pconfig.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/l10n_pconfig-7.x-1.2.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Nothing of interest.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
9c9a9bf5b1530549d2f2317f0a224f278c977ceb74244b472dbf635017a4ea3c
l10n_pconfig-7.x-1.2.tar.gz
9c9a9bf5b1530549d2f2317f0a224f278c977ceb74244b472dbf635017a4ea3c
l10n_pconfig-7.x-1.2.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the
[Bug 959648] Review Request: drupal7-potx - Translation template extractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959648
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5545782
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-potx.src: I: checking
drupal7-potx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US translatability -
tractability, insatiability, attainability
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-potx.src: I: checking-url http://drupal.org/project/potx (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-potx.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/potx-7.x-1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-potx.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-potx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US translatability -
tractability, insatiability, attainability
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-potx.noarch: I: checking-url http://drupal.org/project/potx (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-potx.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/drupal7-potx-1.0/LICENSE.txt
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
drupal7-potx.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/potx-7.x-1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
An incorrect FSF address should be reported upstream.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
04b93c2c659d5c3a58a29a72f5bdaed28fe08152faf57f2bfe215363a1fa5438
potx-7.x-1.0.tar.gz
04b93c2c659d5c3a58a29a72f5bdaed28fe08152faf57f2bfe215363a1fa5438
potx-7.x-1.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
[Bug 953718] Review Request: drupal7-locale_auto_import - Locale automatic import
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953718
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5545807
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-locale_auto_import.src: I: checking
drupal7-locale_auto_import.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -
PO, pew, op
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-locale_auto_import.src: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/locale_auto_import (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-locale_auto_import.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/locale_auto_import-7.x-1.0.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
drupal7-locale_auto_import.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-locale_auto_import.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po
- PO, pew, op
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-locale_auto_import.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/locale_auto_import (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-locale_auto_import.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/locale_auto_import-7.x-1.0.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
7fa948781a5a84d797660d5635ecbcb0cc0e9a0a31177067b9bcbfec9e324f95
locale_auto_import-7.x-1.0.tar.gz
7fa948781a5a84d797660d5635ecbcb0cc0e9a0a31177067b9bcbfec9e324f95
locale_auto_import-7.x-1.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jmarr...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jmarr...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Ping...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=X2u6jtMMGAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 964161] Review Request: libpng15 - backwards compatibility for libpng
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964161 Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-26 07:49:28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L7BycXUq2Na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959650] Review Request: drupal7-entity_translation - Allows entities to be translated into different languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959650
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5545968
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-entity_translation.src: I: checking
drupal7-entity_translation.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
fieldable - field able, field-able, battlefield
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-entity_translation.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
workflow - work flow, work-flow, workforce
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-entity_translation.src: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/entity_translation (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-entity_translation.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/entity_translation-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-entity_translation.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-entity_translation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
fieldable - field able, field-able, battlefield
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-entity_translation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
workflow - work flow, work-flow, workforce
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-entity_translation.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/entity_translation (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-entity_translation.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/entity_translation-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Some ignorable spelling errors.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
50c3fa90e60a8c0198b9ea17383e28d6354519fcdf7e73435fd8221cb2215353
entity_translation-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz
50c3fa90e60a8c0198b9ea17383e28d6354519fcdf7e73435fd8221cb2215353
entity_translation-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system
[Bug 978345] New: Review Request: libtiff3 - backwards compatibility for libtiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978345 Bug ID: 978345 Summary: Review Request: libtiff3 - backwards compatibility for libtiff Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: phra...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/libtiff3/libtiff3.spec SRPM URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/libtiff3/libtiff3-3.9.7-3.fc19.src.rpm Description: Proposed backwards-compatibility package for libtiff 3 The libtiff3 package provides libtiff 3, an older version of libtiff library for manipulating TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) image format files. This version should be used only if you are unable to use the current version of libtiff. Fedora Account System Username: phracek == Review == rpmlint outputs: ~/work/libtiff3 rpmlint libtiff3.spec libtiff3.spec:57: W: make-check-outside-check-section LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH make check 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ~/work/libtiff3 rpmlint /home/phracek/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libtiff3-3.9.7-3.fc19.src.rpm libtiff3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libtiff - lib tiff, lib-tiff, liftoff libtiff3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtiff - lib tiff, lib-tiff, liftoff libtiff3.src:57: W: make-check-outside-check-section LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH make check 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ~/work/libtiff3 ~/work/libtiff3 rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/result/libtiff3-3.9.7-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm libtiff3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libtiff - lib tiff, lib-tiff, liftoff libtiff3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtiff - lib tiff, lib-tiff, liftoff 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ~/work/libtiff3 ~/work/libtiff3 rpm -qpl /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/result/libtiff3-3.9.7-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/libtiff.so.3 /usr/lib64/libtiff.so.3.9.7 /usr/lib64/libtiffxx.so.3 /usr/lib64/libtiffxx.so.3.9.7 /usr/share/doc/libtiff3-3.9.7 /usr/share/doc/libtiff3-3.9.7/COPYRIGHT /usr/share/doc/libtiff3-3.9.7/README /usr/share/doc/libtiff3-3.9.7/RELEASE-DATE /usr/share/doc/libtiff3-3.9.7/VERSION ~/work/libtiff3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=11WNkQjKgpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855780] Review Request: apacheds-daemon - Reusable Daemon Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855780 --- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-daemon.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-daemon-1.1.8-2.fc18.src.rpm - replace mvn-rpmbuild with mvn_build -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=soUPYQhKORa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976919] gnome-desktop-testing - a simple test runner for installed tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976919 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- There's not much to review here, so only very minor issues. The linked spec file is newer than what's included in the src.rpm. It removes the libtool archive. $ rpmlint * gnome-desktop-testing.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gnome-desktop-testing-2013.1/COPYING gnome-desktop-testing.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-desktop-testing-runner gnome-desktop-testing-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gnome-desktop-testing-2013.1/src/gnome-desktop-testing-runner.c = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address The exe-perm should be removed in upstream tarball release, too. Summary:A test runner for installed tests That's *very* generic. In this case it wouldn't hurt to mention the relationship to the GNOME project, e.g. Summary: GNOME's test runner for installed tests Btw, typically, the leading articles (such as A, An, The) don't look good in package tools or Anaconda. * Who will own the default directory /usr/share/installed-tests? The individual packages that store .test files somewhere below that dir? Will there be dependencies on this package? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership All issues are no blockers and could be fixed in Fedora package git. 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=8tHRd4dPI6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959652] Review Request: drupal7-l10n_client - Provides on-page localization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959652
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5545983
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-l10n_client.src: I: checking
drupal7-l10n_client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US drupal -
drupe
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_client.src: I: checking-url http://drupal.org/project/l10n_client
(timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-l10n_client.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/l10n_client-7.x-1.2.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-l10n_client.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-l10n_client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US drupal -
drupe
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_client.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/l10n_client (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-l10n_client.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/l10n_client-7.x-1.2.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
f5194e7e7b90691bf45857fce16101b4f5f2193eb1241da7ebd5ec46e41e32d3
l10n_client-7.x-1.2.tar.gz
f5194e7e7b90691bf45857fce16101b4f5f2193eb1241da7ebd5ec46e41e32d3
l10n_client-7.x-1.2.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[Bug 978358] New: Review Request: wildfly-security-manager - WildFly Security Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358 Bug ID: 978358 Summary: Review Request: wildfly-security-manager - WildFly Security Manager 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/wildfly-security-manager/1/wildfly-security-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/wildfly-security-manager/1/wildfly-security-manager-1.0.0-0.1.Beta1.fc19.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: The Security Manager for WildFly Application Server. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5546018 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ERG347brUXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978358] Review Request: wildfly-security-manager - WildFly Security Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HMvI3uXjdja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959653] Review Request: drupal7-l10n_update - Provides automatic downloads and updates for translations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959653
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5546037
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-l10n_update.src: I: checking
drupal7-l10n_update.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US drupal -
drupe
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_update.src: I: checking-url http://drupal.org/project/l10n_update
(timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-l10n_update.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/l10n_update-7.x-1.0-beta3.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
drupal7-l10n_update.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-l10n_update.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US drupal -
drupe
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-l10n_update.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/l10n_update (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-l10n_update.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/l10n_update-7.x-1.0-beta3.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
e77731b2cbe239e6971b9ff6a76e3202f6beeefe0c8ab976f10901878974e25a
l10n_update-7.x-1.0-beta3.tar.gz
e77731b2cbe239e6971b9ff6a76e3202f6beeefe0c8ab976f10901878974e25a
l10n_update-7.x-1.0-beta3.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- fwiw, I disagree with the recommendation in comment #8 wrt licensing, this should be sufficient to include in the .spec: main pkg: # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 -libs subpkg: # KDE e.V. may determine that future LGPL versions are accepted License: LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 in particular, cmake check code and devdoc examples (that are all BSD) licensed) is irrelevant: * it's not included in the final binary rpm * BSD combined with LGPL/GPL becomes LGPL/GPL effectively anyway -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e8qp6FCaxla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OUMwv4gIfea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978358] Review Request: wildfly-security-manager - WildFly Security Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.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=EDczKHnyoLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960720] Review Request: jspc - Maven plugin for JSP compilation using Jasper (and Glassfish)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960720 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-06-26 09:02:34 --- Comment #10 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com --- F19 built: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=429001 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kdIphGXXFMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959654] Review Request: drupal7-title - Replaces entity legacy fields with regular fields
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959654
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5546080
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-title.src: I: checking
drupal7-title.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contrib - cont rib,
cont-rib, contribute
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-title.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US à - e, s, i
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-title.src: I: checking-url http://drupal.org/project/title (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-title.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/title-7.x-1.0-alpha7.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-title.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-title.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contrib - cont
rib, cont-rib, contribute
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-title.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US à - e, s, i
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-title.noarch: I: checking-url http://drupal.org/project/title (timeout
10 seconds)
drupal7-title.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/title-7.x-1.0-alpha7.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
f03d769601335dd3c02f2c138edc7aca386c1e614674593a5e9e791fae216bb8
title-7.x-1.0-alpha7.tar.gz
f03d769601335dd3c02f2c138edc7aca386c1e614674593a5e9e791fae216bb8
title-7.x-1.0-alpha7.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it
[Bug 882482] Review Request: python-nikola - Static website and blog generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882482 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to José Matos from comment #6) I have been using version 5.4.4 for some time, updating it here for completeness: Please complete python-yapsy first (bug #888385). Once the Rawhide package is available, I will go ahead here. Just a few initial comments: python-devel is deprecated, use python2-devel instead: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires License is MIT, not GPL. I've haven't found any GPL stuff in the tarball. python-imaging is no longer available for Fedora, it will be provided virtually by python-pillow. Please make sure python-nikola works with Pillow: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Pillow As seen in README.md, it should also work with Python3. Do you've tested it? There are po files in translations/nikola.messages. You have to install them with the %find_lang macro. What about the tests? Is it possible to run them? In docs/man I found a manpage, seems to be not installed currently. However, it is not a real manpage, it is a text file with no or unknown formatting. You might contact the author to get a real one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LNqTNNUvJna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jmarr...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #11 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- Sorry for the delay... Here are the new files with the changes: http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun-1.0.0-2.fc19.src.rpm old packages: http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/old/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ae9dVOgL8Oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Please recognize the latest comment from Rex Dieter regarding the licenses: (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #10) main pkg: # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 -libs subpkg: # KDE e.V. may determine that future LGPL versions are accepted License: LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 in particular, cmake check code and devdoc examples (that are all BSD) licensed) is irrelevant: * it's not included in the final binary rpm * BSD combined with LGPL/GPL becomes LGPL/GPL effectively anyway Sorry, I was mislead by the license declaration in the tarball which is a bit confusing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SrJdfVgH4Pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #13 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ only then? And both go in the license tag only? Or should I make a comment specifying that the GPLv2+ is for the main package and the LGPLv2+ goes to the libs package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E0aS6r2oIka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #14 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- i.e. Like this: License:GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ #GPLv2+ for the main package and LGPLv2+ for the libs package. ?? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dR3cG0Hvqba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978381] New: Review Request: dleyna-core - Utilities for higher level dLeyna libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978381 Bug ID: 978381 Summary: Review Request: dleyna-core - Utilities for higher level dLeyna libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: debars...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/dleyna-core.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/dleyna-core-0.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A set of utility functions that are used by the higher level dLeyna libraries to communicate with DLNA devices. It provides APIs for logging, error, settings and task management, and an IPC abstraction. Fedora Account System Username: rishi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6fwZIdo7OUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- 2 options: 1. basically follow my suggestion in comment #12: in main pkg near top include the snippet (with comment): # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 and in -libs subpkg (under %package libs somewhere) and -devel subpkg (likewise under %package devel somewhere), include (with comment): # KDE e.V. may determine that future LGPL versions are accepted License: LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 2. alternatively, combine this all in main pkg only using: # this package is GPLv2 or GPLv3 except content under # lib/ (libhomerun) which is LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL/LGPL versions are accepted License: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) Personally, option 1 is simpler and easier to parse, but it's up to 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=FeOZxNeVZXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #16 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
You can define it separately for each package:
Name: homerun
Version:1.0.0
Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:KDE Application Launcher
License:GPLv2+
%package libs
Summary: Library files of homerun launcher
License: LGPLv2+
%package devel
Summary: Development files for homerun libs
License: LGPLv2+
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Y2KIcJtK4ba=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- well, strictly, there is an option 3, simply: # KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 since this does accurately reflect the combined work of everything, but this misses describing the possibility that something LGPL-compatible (but not GPL-compat) could link to libhomerun -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FPqKeFZB7Sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978010] Review Request: perl-Wx-GLCanvas - Interface to wxWidgets' OpenGL canvas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978010
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com ---
Ok, the deps are all wrong :)
What you actually need to BR:
perl, perl(Exporter), perl(lib), perl(strict), perl(Wx::build::MakeMaker), and
wxGTK-devel
ExtUtils::MakeMaker is only used if Wx::build::MakeMaker is not present.
Alien::wxWidgets and Wx are not required for build in your case.
I don't understand how the package builds without the wx/* files since they're
all included in GLCanvas.xs. Could you explain that? Also, why do you remove
the directory?
You'll need to buildrequire many more modules in the %{?with_tests} conditional
block:
perl(base), lib/Wx/GLCanvas.pm:17
perl(Test::More), t/zz_pod.t:4
perl(Wx), lib/Wx/GLCanvas.pm:16
perl(Wx::ScrolledWindow), lib/Wx/GLCanvas.pm:17
Protip: You could use Test::NeedsDisplay to provide an Xvfb display for the
tests, running them everywhere, every time.
https://metacpan.org/module/ADAMK/Test-NeedsDisplay-1.07/lib/Test/NeedsDisplay.pm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ui2w3IuAFIa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- For background, see thread that includes: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-February/001541.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4hFLhmzgEEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #20 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- Thanks Rex for the correct way of doing this. http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun-1.0.0-3.fc19.src.rpm old packages: http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/old/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iDaJcXq75Ya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #21 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com --- Ahh thanks for the links, reeding... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GTg1J2Cq4ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956931] Review Request: homerun - Application Launcher for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931 --- Comment #18 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- and, please do not simply use GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+, fedora-legal has already commented that this special KDE case with KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted cannot use this variant, and recommended using the forms I already mentioned. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=59yVwmyhDXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978358] Review Request: wildfly-security-manager - WildFly Security Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- hi there are some problem: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:compile (default-compile) on project wildfly-security-manager: Compilation failure [ERROR] /builddir/build/BUILD/security-manager-1.0.0.Beta1/src/main/java/org/wildfly/security/manager/AccessCheckingInterceptor.java:[63,42] no suitable method found for doChecked(org.jboss.invocation.InterceptorContext) [ERROR] method org.wildfly.security.manager.WildFlySecurityManager.TdoChecked(java.security.PrivilegedExceptionActionT) is not applicable [ERROR] (no instance(s) of type variable(s) T exist so that argument type org.jboss.invocation.InterceptorContext conforms to formal parameter type java.security.PrivilegedExceptionActionT) [ERROR] method org.wildfly.security.manager.WildFlySecurityManager.TdoChecked(java.security.PrivilegedActionT) is not applicable [ERROR] (no instance(s) of type variable(s) T exist so that argument type org.jboss.invocation.InterceptorContext conforms to formal parameter type java.security.PrivilegedActionT) [ERROR] - [Help 1] proceed with a manual review... 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=UYZsseJZvFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885038] Review Request: pentobi - Program that plays the board game Blokus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885038 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #19 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- I concur. You will need to replace the Blokus trademark with a popular block-based abstract strategy board game in all the places it is visible to the end-user, including in the .spec description. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uW4rYyDcAla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978358] Review Request: wildfly-security-manager - WildFly Security Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wildfly-
security-manager-javadoc
[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 (v2.1 or later).
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that
[Bug 967357] Review Request: python-phyghtmap - Generate OSM contour lines from NASA SRTM data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2fktc2MRWva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967357] Review Request: python-phyghtmap - Generate OSM contour lines from NASA SRTM data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.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=gS6mJ75Wg2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967357] Review Request: python-phyghtmap - Generate OSM contour lines from NASA SRTM data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m1LqsW954pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967357] Review Request: python-phyghtmap - Generate OSM contour lines from NASA SRTM data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.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=VMApts2Twpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892597] Review Request: glite-lb-types - Build-time component for gLite LB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892597
--- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com ---
You'll need to buildrequire the following:
- perl (called in spec)
- perl(Getopt::Long), ./configure:26
- perl(POSIX), ./configure:27
Don't use absolute paths in your spec.
Call perl simply 'perl' (preferred) or use the %{__perl} macro.
Put the installled C header file in a devel subpackage, as mandated by the
packaging guidelines.
Since your Summary and %description are identical, consider using the
%{summary} macro.
The %check section doesn't run anything and can be dropped.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2T32Kem25ca=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 #34 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com --- No more conflicts! 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=sQj9Ytv0fha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #10 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- The tooling itself is not an issue. Any lpf examples/recipes/packages must be legally reviewed on a case-by-case basis to minimize risk. Lifting FE-Legal here, but please be sure to remove the examples before committing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WjlqAhsXwja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 --- Comment #11 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com --- Thanks Tom, for your comment. So, Alec, I assume you'd be providing updated SPEC/SRPM with the said examples elided (is that the right assumption?), so that this review can proceed further. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XlTMnbFBNfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Tom: thanks! Kashyap: new links: spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf/3/lpf.spec srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf/3/lpf-0-3.46ae0c3.fc18.src.rpm Changelog: * Sun Jun 23 2013 Alec Leamas lea...@nowhere.net - 0-3.fe3defcf9 - Removed examples, added lpf spec template. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QhCY6GmoSsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967357] Review Request: python-phyghtmap - Generate OSM contour lines from NASA SRTM data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5HBRCzw9t1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059
--- Comment #13 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com ---
Ah good catch, otherwise I would actually have to bump the date on the posttag
everytime a new change has to happen on the package. Something like
1.20130621svn12%{dist} should do it then :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iWDyoL1Bdha=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- In this specific case, Red Hat is uncomfortable with including this recipe without explicit confirmation from Spotify that it is acceptable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uURK3nMSWIa=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 --- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/nodejs-i2c.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/nodejs-i2c-0.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm * Wed Jun 26 2013 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com - 0.1.3-2 - fix permissions on shared object -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7EUdZbQd07a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977136] Review Request: nodejs-underscore-dot-string - String manipulation extensions for the Underscore.js JavaScript library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tchollingswo...@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=faByEvicsZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977133] Review Request: nodejs-package - Provides an easy way to export package.json data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tchollingswo...@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=jHNuYRu3h4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977132] Review Request: nodejs-lodash - A low-level utility library delivering consistency and customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977132 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tchollingswo...@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=AV78ppOTQja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977136] Review Request: nodejs-underscore-dot-string - String manipulation extensions for the Underscore.js JavaScript library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Status: APPROVED
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[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.
LICENSE in README.markdown - OK
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
nodejs macros used - OK
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
nodejs- prefix used - OK
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
missing deps for tests - OK
[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]: Fully versioned dependency
[Bug 978381] Review Request: dleyna-core - Utilities for higher level dLeyna libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978381 Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||978489 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kHEzABabBra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978489] Review Request: dleyna-connector-dbus - D-Bus connector for dLeyna services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978489 Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||978381 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eYD09Fxvnka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978489] New: Review Request: dleyna-connector-dbus - D-Bus connector for dLeyna services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978489 Bug ID: 978489 Summary: Review Request: dleyna-connector-dbus - D-Bus connector for dLeyna services Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: debars...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/dleyna-connector-dbus.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/dleyna-connector-dbus-0.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: D-Bus connector for dLeyna services. Fedora Account System Username: rishi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EjB2CPy5QKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978494] Review Request: dleyna-renderer - Service for interacting with Digital Media Renderers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978494 Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||978381 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jZQPNsJYhqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978381] Review Request: dleyna-core - Utilities for higher level dLeyna libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978381 Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||978494 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xs9YoDYwbxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978489] Review Request: dleyna-connector-dbus - D-Bus connector for dLeyna services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978489 Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||978494 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KfLqjJ7iUTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978494] Review Request: dleyna-renderer - Service for interacting with Digital Media Renderers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978494 Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||978489 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GmZmCK0kV4a=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 #10 from Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com --- It looks like 0755 is fine for this and I can just the defattr line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZPDmSPTsrCa=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 #11 from Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com --- 644 is fine for all of the files as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UyHG2S5zioa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977132] Review Request: nodejs-lodash - A low-level utility library delivering consistency and customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977132 --- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- A. nodejs-0.10.12 has been in updates-testing for a few days and should fix at least that part of the problem. B. I can't approve a package with precompiled JS without FPC approval, sorry. JQuery has been blocked for too long on the same grounds, it would be unfair to do anything else. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q5NwWOuK3oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977133] Review Request: nodejs-package - Provides an easy way to export package.json data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Status: APPROVED
= Things to Consider
[ ]: This module is deprecated upstream.
Consider working with upstreams using this module to port to
read-package-json.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[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.
MIT in License.md - OK
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
nodejs macros used - OK
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
nodejs- prefix used - OK
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
% npm -q view package version
1.0.1
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
missing deps - OK
[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.
[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 #35 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
No, you need to increase the version-release in the Obsoletes tag (your
%{obs_ver} value to be higher than the last build for Fedora 18), submit a
build and updates for the branches where to rename this package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8QNA9b2BFYa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977132] Review Request: nodejs-lodash - A low-level utility library delivering consistency and customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977132 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Oh yes, I was going to ask your advice about this package. I've actually deleted all of the minified JS in the %prep section, so as it stands there's no precompiled JS. But of course the minified scripts are fairly important so it's less than ideal to have a package without them. The ideal thing to do is package google-closure-compiler and fix the build script to stop fetching external sources, but I'm not sure that's something I can get done within a reasonable time frame (particularly based on the comments from the Red Hat Satellite bugzilla). But of course if that's the only option, then that's the path I will take... Would it be acceptable to minimize them differently than is done in the build scripts? For example, minify with just uglify-js and be done with it? That might result in poorer compression etc, but I'd guess that the end result for the user mostly won't be noticeable. Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VNw8GVBPpFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I certainly understand that. What I've got so far is [1]. Do you think this is clear enough (it could certainly be more clear...) ? A sidenote: in their forum I have a thread [2] with a manual recipe how to build a rpm using the spec + some CLI magic. This thread is well-known and obviously accepted. The lpf package basically just automates this recipe, which in my (non-lawyer) eyes seems like more or less the same thing from a law perspective. (?) --alec PS: Sorry, I'm no native English speaker. It becomes just so embarrassing clear when trying to discuss legal stuff blushes [1]: http://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Desktop-Linux-Mac-and/What-license-does-the-linux-spotify-client-use/td-p/17335[ [2]: http://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Desktop-Linux-Mac-and/Linux-Fedora-RPM-package-for-F17-F18/m-p/191612#M8425 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WVey6QgyNGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916553] Review Request: ghc-setenv - Cross-platform library for setting environment variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916553 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-setenv-0.1.0-1.fc17 |ghc-setenv-0.1.0-1.el6 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-setenv-0.1.0-1.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=BGcyqTgpvUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- You need to explain to Spotify clearly and simply, what you are doing and how Fedora would be distributing it (and not the Spotify client), then ask for someone from Spotify to confirm that they are okay with it. Show us that and we'll let this proceed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=994SZZO5JWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- OK, fair enough, I'll try to do that. However, it might take some time. They are not to responsive in general, and since they are Swedes a lot of them are on long summer holidays now. We'll see... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QttvmO2qHqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959655] Review Request: drupal7-transliteration - Converts non-Latin text to US-ASCII and sanitizes file names
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959655
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5548860
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-transliteration.src: I: checking
drupal7-transliteration.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
romanization - humanization, organization, randomization
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-transliteration.src: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/transliteration (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-transliteration.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/transliteration-7.x-3.1.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-transliteration.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-transliteration.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
romanization - humanization, organization, randomization
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-transliteration.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/transliteration (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-transliteration.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/transliteration-7.x-3.1.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
b673be81f28d9ebb053a50bcfba3b57b97b6ace494bdb254c8e640166be37e49
transliteration-7.x-3.1.tar.gz
b673be81f28d9ebb053a50bcfba3b57b97b6ace494bdb254c8e640166be37e49
transliteration-7.x-3.1.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A
[Bug 978569] New: Review Request: thredds - THREDDS Data Server (TDS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978569 Bug ID: 978569 Summary: Review Request: thredds - THREDDS Data Server (TDS) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds-4.3.16-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Unidata THREDDS project includes the netCDF-Java library (aka CDM) and the THREDDS Data Server (TDS). Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NinS5amr7ha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978569] Review Request: thredds - THREDDS Data Server (TDS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978569 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||977589 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dCOsN76gfMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977589] Review Request: je - Berkeley DB Java Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977589 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||978569 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JN43VBmq3ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977136] Review Request: nodejs-underscore-dot-string - String manipulation extensions for the Underscore.js JavaScript library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-underscore-dot-string Short Description: String manipulation extensions for the Underscore.js JavaScript library 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=eodPuO4g3da=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977133] Review Request: nodejs-package - Provides an easy way to export package.json data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- = Things to Consider [ ]: This module is deprecated upstream. Consider working with upstreams using this module to port to read-package-json. Oh, I didn't realise this. I'll open an issue upstream and see what needs to be done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Abks0r7Jeqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977133] Review Request: nodejs-package - Provides an easy way to export package.json data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-package Short Description: Provides an easy way to export package.json data 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=WJABBnHG8La=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 jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- 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=JQOXicDDPfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959660] Review Request: drupal7-stringoverrides - Provides a quick and easy way of replacing text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959660
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5548899
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-stringoverrides.src: I: checking
drupal7-stringoverrides.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po - PO,
pew, op
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-stringoverrides.src: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/stringoverrides (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-stringoverrides.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/stringoverrides-7.x-1.8.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-stringoverrides.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-stringoverrides.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -
PO, pew, op
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-stringoverrides.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/stringoverrides (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-stringoverrides.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/drupal7-stringoverrides-1.8/LICENSE.txt
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
drupal7-stringoverrides.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/stringoverrides-7.x-1.8.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
An incorrect FSF address should be reported upstream.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
34f0cd7ac6326eb3c95598a83478fa7f6ad0fdb348c8ef2f636cd65501e2779c
stringoverrides-7.x-1.8.tar.gz
34f0cd7ac6326eb3c95598a83478fa7f6ad0fdb348c8ef2f636cd65501e2779c
stringoverrides-7.x-1.8.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the
[Bug 978569] Review Request: thredds - THREDDS Data Server (TDS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978569 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IBFUrg6dgNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977133] Review Request: nodejs-package - Provides an easy way to export package.json data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t2xCuB9vOma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977133] Review Request: nodejs-package - Provides an easy way to export package.json data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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=oEMy9wUHZaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977136] Review Request: nodejs-underscore-dot-string - String manipulation extensions for the Underscore.js JavaScript library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=B5suy5Ga7Pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977136] Review Request: nodejs-underscore-dot-string - String manipulation extensions for the Underscore.js JavaScript library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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=92prXOzi9ma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 959662] Review Request: drupal7-languageicons - Adds icons to language links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959662
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5548955
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-languageicons.src: I: checking
drupal7-languageicons.src: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/languageicons (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-languageicons.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/languageicons-7.x-1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
drupal7-languageicons.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-languageicons.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/languageicons (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-languageicons.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/languageicons-7.x-1.0.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
190bb015efee6a67d6f79344c1d2f44ee243aecfaa08eaf750bdd1ca93177198
languageicons-7.x-1.0.tar.gz
190bb015efee6a67d6f79344c1d2f44ee243aecfaa08eaf750bdd1ca93177198
languageicons-7.x-1.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must
[Bug 959663] Review Request: drupal7-language_switcher - Language switcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959663
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5548984
$ rpmlint -i -v *drupal7-language_switcher.src: I: checking
drupal7-language_switcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -
mulch, mufti
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-language_switcher.src: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/language_switcher (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-language_switcher.src: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/language_switcher-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-language_switcher.noarch: I: checking
drupal7-language_switcher.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi
- mulch, mufti
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
drupal7-language_switcher.noarch: I: checking-url
http://drupal.org/project/language_switcher (timeout 10 seconds)
drupal7-language_switcher.spec: I: checking-url
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/language_switcher-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
6b87030df110c6665c237321a617f4729db6394b976ead159fe256308dade35e
language_switcher-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz
6b87030df110c6665c237321a617f4729db6394b976ead159fe256308dade35e
language_switcher-7.x-1.0-beta2.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not
[Bug 978587] New: Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587 Bug ID: 978587 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@matbooth.co.uk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-testng.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-testng-6.8.5-1.20130625gite0f6037.fc19.src.rpm Description: The Eclipse TestNG plug-in integrates the TestNG testing framework into the Eclipse IDE. Fedora Account System Username: mbooth -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=M2C69i5XSoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
