[Bug 658754] Review Request: cubrid - a very fast and reliable open source SQL database server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658754

--- Comment #47 from Esen Sagynov  ---
Peter, here is the build result on rawhide. Successful on both x86 and x64.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5654320

I will now build locally on earlier versions starting from f19.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PS7ZAk9eJO&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986715] Review Request: python-cairocffi - cffi-based cairo bindings for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986715

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||cicku...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@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=MkAmYSf4JT&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986608] Review Request: weasyprint - Utility and Python library to render HTML and CSS to PDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986608

Eric Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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=9m154m7zy8&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 975309] Review Request: libcutl - C++ utility library from Code Synthesis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975309

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cicku...@gmail.com

--- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng  ---
I think you can drop support for EL5.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TM7k0FVBta&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 975309] Review Request: libcutl - C++ utility library from Code Synthesis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975309

--- Comment #14 from Dave Johansen  ---
I just submitted the package using fedpkg and the build was successful on
Fedora 18-20 and EL 6, but on ppc for EL 5 it failed with the following error
for the ppc build (
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=5654037&name=build.log ):

checking if we should use external boost... yes
checking for boost base headers... yes
checking for boost regex library... no
checking for boost system library... no
configure: error: boost regex is not found; consider using CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS or
--with-boost=DIR to specify its location
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.39047 (%build)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.39047 (%build)

It looks like the Boost headers are there but that the Boost regex and system
libraries are either not there or the check is incorrectly returning "no".

Is this an issue with in the spec file and EL 5? Or is there something else
going on with the system side of things that is causing this issue?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NoY8p9chPz&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987731] Review Request: qt4pas - Free Pascal Qt4 Binding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987731

Eric Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||space...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|space...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Eric Smith  ---
Build succeeds for rawhide, but fails for F19, both on my own machine and with
koji.  Problem seems to be with qmake, maybe something in the Qt4Pas.pro file? 
Here's the excerpt from the log:

+ %qmake_qt4 Qt4Pas.pro
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LLsNRb: line 29: fg: no job control

If you don't plan to push to F19, this can be ignored.  

Is qt4.pas necessary when not doing development?  If not, please put it into
the devel subpackage.  Or...  fedora-review calls it an EXTRA but I categorize
as a SHOULD, that %{_datadir}/fpcsrc/pacakges/qt4/qt4.pas should go into a
noarch subpackage, and be Required by the devel package (or the main package,
if needed for non-development use).

Here's the review checklist:


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[[reviewer notes]]


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "Unknown or generated". 380 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/eric/987731-qt4pas/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: 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 i

[Bug 988193] Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme - elementary-xfce-icon-theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng  ---
We don't need %posttrans now, right?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dFHBmxc9AD&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988193] Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme - elementary-xfce-icon-theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193

--- Comment #3 from hannes  ---
Ok, changed that. But I need to head to work now, so will have to do anything
else later on today.
Thanks for the quick response!
http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/elementary-xfce-icon-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/elementary-xfce-icon-theme-0.3-2.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jS73Zchadq&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988193] Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme - elementary-xfce-icon-theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193

--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng  ---
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
 touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce &>/dev/null
 touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-dark &>/dev/null
 touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-darker &>/dev/null
 gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce &>/dev/null
 gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-dark
&>/dev/null
 gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-darker
&>/dev/null ||:
fi

sorry.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=h1evBsyfV6&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988193] Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme - elementary-xfce-icon-theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193

--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng  ---
Please remove:

1. rm -rf  %{buildroot} in %install

2. whole %clean section.

3. %defattr(-,root,root,-)

%postun should be:

%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
 touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce &>/dev/null
 touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-dark &>/dev/null
 touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-darker &>/dev/null
 gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce &>/dev/null
 gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-dark
&>/dev/null
 gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/elementary-xfce-darker
&>/dev/null ||:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oB1CMkTi5N&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985640] Review Request: 2ping - Bi-directional ping utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985640

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
2ping-2.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/2ping-2.0-1.fc18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fKeNkibtmf&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988193] Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme - elementary-xfce-icon-theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||cicku...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@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=GfOSrjzQ3f&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988193] New: Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme - elementary-xfce-icon-theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193

Bug ID: 988193
   Summary: Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme -
elementary-xfce-icon-theme
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: johannes.l...@googlemail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/elementary-xfce-icon-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/elementary-xfce-icon-theme-0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: This is an icon-theme maintained with Xfce in mind,
but it supports other desktops like Gnome3 as well.
It's a fork of the upstream elementary-project, 
which took place because the team decided to
drop a lot of desktop-specific symlinks. 
This icon-theme is supposed to keep everything 
working, but we'll still pull new icons from upstream 
and integrate them occasionally.
Fedora Account System Username: hannes

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ufijsVINhY&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985640] Review Request: 2ping - Bi-directional ping utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985640

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
2ping-2.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/2ping-2.0-1.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=NSKzQsyDjC&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985640] Review Request: 2ping - Bi-directional ping utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985640

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7YnCyPr4nl&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987843] Review Request: python-bloom - A ROS release automation tool for catkin packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987843

--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Rich, based on the discussion on the ROS build sys ML, I don't think bloom can
function on Fedora at all. Until one of us comes up with a Fedora generator,
this package is mostly unusable. What do you think? Should I mark the
whiteboard as NotReady?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6ZQKhxOMIV&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 928584] Review Request: ros-std_msgs - Standard ROS Messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928584

--- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue

** Mandatory review guidelines: **
 [+] rpmlint output:
[asinha@localhost  SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/ros-std_msgs.spec
./ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc19.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-std_msgs.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/std_msgs/msg/Empty.msg
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
[asinha@localhost  SRPMS]$

 [+] License is acceptable (...)
 [+] License field in spec is correct
 [+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package
 [+] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
 [+] Spec written in American English
 [+] Spec is legible
 [+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
   [asinha@localhost  SRPMS]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/ros-std_msgs.spec
Getting
https://github.com/ros/std_msgs/archive/de0dcf16baaee40f756b9e55656fe2e744bc8fc3/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz
to /tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz
  % Total% Received % Xferd  Average Speed   TimeTime Time  Current
 Dload  Upload   Total   SpentLeft  Speed
100   154  100   1540 0122  0  0:00:01  0:00:01 --:--:--   123
100  6947  100  69470 0   3041  0  0:00:02  0:00:02 --:--:-- 19569
67999742fb86f0ed7b2880e5917ddf5a  /tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz
67999742fb86f0ed7b2880e5917ddf5a
/home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz
removed ‘/tmp/review/std_msgs-0.4.11-de0dcf1.tar.gz’
removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’
[asinha@localhost  SRPMS]$

 [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch
 [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
 [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary
 [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/*
 [+] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
 [+] No bundled libs
 [-] Relocatability is justified
 [+] Package owns all directories it creates
 [?] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own
[asinha@localhost  result]$ review-req-check
== ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.noarch.rpm ==
Provides:
ros-std_msgs = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20

Requires:
python(abi) = 2.7
ros-release

== ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.src.rpm ==
Provides:

Requires:
cmake
python-setuptools-devel
catkin-devel
python-genmsg-devel
python-gencpp-devel
python-genlisp-devel
python-genpy-devel

== ros-std_msgs-devel-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20.noarch.rpm ==
Provides:
pkgconfig(std_msgs) = 0.4.11
ros-std_msgs = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20
ros-std_msgs-devel = 0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc20

Requires:
/usr/bin/pkg-config

[asinha@localhost  result]$

^^ 
1.Just confirming: Which package that is Required by this one is the
%{_datadir}/common-lisp/ros/ directory
owned by?
2. Shouldn't the package require the non devel versions of the python BRs to
function?


 [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files
 [+] File permissions are sane
 [+] Package contains permissible code or content
 [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage
 [?] %doc files not required at runtime
There is no documentation at all. No licence or even a README :/

 [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides
 [+] Development files go in -devel package
 [+] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
Noarch so isa isn't needed

 [+] No .la files
 [-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install
 [-] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification
 [+] File names are valid UTF-8

** Optional review guidelines: **
 [?] Query upstream about including license files
We can, but I don't think ROS intends to include licence files in any of it's
packages. Should we make ros-release include a license file if it doesn't
already, since all these packages will be expected to Require it?

 [-] Translations of description, summary
 [+] Builds in mock
 [+] Builds on all arches
 [-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes)
 [-] Scriptlets are sane

[Bug 976770] Review Request: sstp-client - Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976770

--- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes  ---

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rich/tmp/976770-sstp-
 client/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyr

[Bug 986712] Review Request: python-cffi - Foreign Function Interface for Python to call C code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986712

Eric Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #8 from Eric Smith  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-cffi
Short Description: Foreign Function Interface for Python to call C code
Owners: brouhaha
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=LJz5esP4TO&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986634] Review Request: python-pyphen - Pure Python module to hyphenate text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986634

Eric Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #10 from Eric Smith  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-pyphen
Short Description: Pure Python module to hyphenate text
Owners: brouhaha
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=VuAffS5eli&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986712] Review Request: python-cffi - Foreign Function Interface for Python to call C code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986712

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng  ---
OK.

Seems I need to cleanup my mock environment ;)

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=G6QqH3WlAu&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986712] Review Request: python-cffi - Foreign Function Interface for Python to call C code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986712

--- Comment #6 from Eric Smith  ---
1.  That doesn't happen when built on my system for f19 or built on Koji for
rawhide.  I think there is some problem on your build machine.  This happened
with the python-tinycss review also.

rawhide:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5653760

$ ls *.rpm
python3-cffi-0.6-3.fc20.i686.rpmpython-cffi-0.6-3.fc20.i686.rpm
python3-cffi-0.6-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm  python-cffi-0.6-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm
$ rpmlint *.rpm
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpm -qlvp *.rpm | egrep \.so
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot77240 Jul 24 19:54
/usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/_cffi_backend.cpython-33m.so
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot84888 Jul 24 19:54
/usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/_cffi_backend.cpython-33m.so
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot72936 Jul 24 19:54
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_cffi_backend.so
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot80488 Jul 24 19:54
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_cffi_backend.so


2.  I don't know whether anyone depends on having PKG-INFO files in Fedora RPMs
of Python modules.  If not, then PKG-INFO may not be necessary, but since it is
provided by 1117 other packages (as determined by "yum provides */PKG-INFO |
grep ^Repo | wc -l") I don't think I should remove it.


3.  I'll mention the check failure to upstream, but it really isn't their issue
since the check passes without any reported errors if I run it manually on the
same build system.  It's something in how rpmbuild is setting up the
environment, which isn't an upstream problem, so I don't intend to deal with it
as something that needs to be tracked upstream.  Of course, if upstream is able
to help with debugging it, that's great.


4.  Yes, I plan to push python-cffi to EL6.  I really want to get WeasyPrint
into EL6, although it looks like that might not be possible, so it may have to
wait for EL7.  However, at a minimum I want to get as many of the prerequisites
into EL6 as possible.  Having python-cffi in EL6 is useful for other reasons.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lePeZZu1S8&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 980960] Review Request: rpmgrill - A utility for catching problems in koji builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980960

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: rpmgrill -  |Review Request: rpmgrill -
   |utility for catching|A utility for catching
   |problems in koji builds |problems in koji builds

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WXQHOdSJQA&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 980960] Review Request: rpmgrill - utility for catching problems in koji builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980960

--- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng  ---
Not sure, leave it to your sponsor ;)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UacIKOD6RT&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987395] Review Request: gwebsockets - GLib based websockets server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987395

--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng  ---
No test. Test requires autobahn module, which is not packaged.

I can't find a reason why not running a test.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9Xja5urFSs&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 980960] Review Request: rpmgrill - utility for catching problems in koji builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980960

--- Comment #12 from Ed Santiago  ---
> Hint:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

I'm taking that as "hint: start helping out with reviews" -- I'm still a bit
intimidated. But I'm reading. Thank you.

> rpmgrill.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt
> 
> Is it really needed?

The actual requirement is /usr/bin/xsltproc . One of the plugins invokes it via
qx{...}. Is there a better way to specify the dependency?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nxNnyWFGpb&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986634] Review Request: python-pyphen - Pure Python module to hyphenate text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986634

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng  ---
Looks good.

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=KHoUrKcLB3&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986712] Review Request: python-cffi - Foreign Function Interface for Python to call C code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986712

--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng  ---
1. python-cffi.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_cffi_backend.so 0775L
python3-cffi.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/_cffi_backend.cpython-33m.so 0775L

2. Do we need PKG-INFO as %doc?

3. Please report check failure to upstream.

4. Will you push to EL6?

If not please remove 

%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print (get_python_lib())")}

(optional)

Package is fine, nearly 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=WOnNHK0NSX&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 980960] Review Request: rpmgrill - utility for catching problems in koji builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980960

--- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng  ---
Hint:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

This time the package is good.

only

rpmgrill.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt

Is it really needed?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pb3dTBBSic&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 974145] Review Request: bluez5 - Bluetooth v5 utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974145

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(kevin@tigcc.tical |
   |c.org)  |

--- Comment #16 from Kevin Kofler  ---
Well, first you find out what packages are affected. It's your job as the
people driving the change to do that. repoquery can find at least those where
RPM Requires has been used correctly. I don't know if there are packages where
that is missing. (If so, arguably, the package is already broken.)

And then you file tracking bugs here to try and get those packages ported.
They'll just be broken in Rawhide until that happens. If the package cannot be
ported, a fallback plan (either introducing a bluez4 compatibility package or
just dropping the offending BlueZ-using package, having it be Obsoleted by some
other package) needs to be established. But really, the goal should be to get
everything affected ported. Conflicts are evil, especially in cases such as
this where they prevent installing multiple desktop environments.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=M87HdCr4tM&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #27 from Christopher Meng  ---
I think you don't have to include f17 systemd scripts as now is 19 and 17 is
EOL.

Besides it's a pain to read so many shell scripts ;)

Another issue is :

bumblebee.i686: E: zero-length /etc/bumblebee/xorg.conf.d/10-dummy.conf

Why is it zero-length?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iWgMzYMeXm&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985087] Review Request: hadoop - A software platform for processing vast amounts of data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985087

--- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng  ---
Suggestion:

Please use http://hadoop.apache.org as URL.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GyOVS4yTxL&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 927462] Review Request: roscpp_core - The ROS C++ API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

--- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes  ---
Update:

Spec URL:
http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/roscpp-core/roscpp_core.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/roscpp-core/roscpp_core-0.2.6-2.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc19.src.rpm

$ rpmlint roscpp_core.spec ../../RPMS/x86_64/roscpp_core*
roscpp_core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core.x86_64: W: no-documentation
roscpp_core-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp ->
Roscoe
roscpp_core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp ->
Roscoe


The docs are pretty small, I don't think it's worth it to separate them into a
separate subpackage.

roslib-devel from the "ros" and roscpp-devel from the "ros_comm" package also
put headers in this folder, so I'll make sure that roslib-devel and
roscpp-devel depend on roscpp-core_devel, and I'll make sure this package owns
includedir/ros.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4zGnTjdsB9&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987731] Review Request: qt4pas - Free Pascal Qt4 Binding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987731

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org
  Alias||qt4pas

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E7dSfud7K4&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 928584] Review Request: ros-std_msgs - Standard ROS Messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928584

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||972346

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TNQ5aafp11&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 972346] Review Request: ros-common_msgs - Common ROS Messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972346

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||928584 (ros-std_msgs)

--- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes  ---
Update:

Spec URL:
http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/common-msgs/ros-common_msgs.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/common-msgs/ros-common_msgs-1.8.13-2.20130605git60eee8c.fc19.src.rpm

I realized while building in mock this afternoon that this package also depends
on ros-std_msgs, so I've added that to the blocker bug list and the
BuildRequires.


$ rpmlint ros-std_msgs.spec ../../RPMS/noarch/ros*0.4.11-2*
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-std_msgs.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/std_msgs/msg/Empty.msg
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
[rich@primus fuerte]$ rpmlint ros-common_msgs.spec ../../RPMS/noarch/*1.8.13-2*
ros-actionlib_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) actionlib -> action
lib, action-lib, libation
ros-actionlib_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US actionlib ->
action lib, action-lib, libation
ros-actionlib_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-actionlib_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-actionlib_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) actionlib ->
action lib, action-lib, libation
ros-actionlib_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-actionlib_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
actionlib -> action lib, action-lib, libation
ros-actionlib_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs
-> mags, megs, mugs
ros-actionlib_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-common_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-common_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US actionlib ->
action lib, action-lib, libation
ros-common_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nav -> van,
nab, av
ros-common_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-diagnostic_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime ->
run time, run-time, rudiment
ros-diagnostic_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-diagnostic_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-diagnostic_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs
-> mags, megs, mugs
ros-diagnostic_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-geometry_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-geometry_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
interoperability -> interchangeability, invulnerability, inseparability
ros-geometry_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-geometry_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-geometry_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-geometry_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-nav_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nav -> van, nab, av
ros-nav_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nav -> van, nab,
av
ros-nav_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-nav_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-nav_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nav -> van, nab, av
ros-nav_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-nav_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nav -> van,
nab, av
ros-nav_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-nav_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-sensor_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-sensor_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-sensor_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-sensor_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-shape_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-shape_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-shape_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-shape_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-stereo_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-stereo_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-stereo_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-stereo_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs

[Bug 971431] Review Request: jboss-ejb-3.2-api - Enterprise JavaBeans 3.2 API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971431

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1
   ||.Alpha2.fc19
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2013-07-24 20:44:26

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LHiENYc9nj&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 928584] Review Request: ros-std_msgs - Standard ROS Messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928584

--- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes  ---
Updated packages

Spec URL:
http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/std-msgs/ros-std_msgs.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/rospackages/std-msgs/ros-std_msgs-0.4.11-2.20130605gitde0dcf1.fc19.src.rpm

$ rpmlint ros-std_msgs.spec ../../RPMS/noarch/ros*0.4.11-2*
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs -> mags,
megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiarrays ->
multiracial
ros-std_msgs.noarch: W: no-documentation
ros-std_msgs.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/std_msgs/msg/Empty.msg
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) msgs -> mags, megs,
mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msgs ->
mags, megs, mugs
ros-std_msgs-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=50hG6uffB8&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 984806] Review Request: ghc-yesod-routes - Efficient routing for Yesod

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984806

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-yesod-routes-1.2.0.1-1.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=Hf6ofuBt4v&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 979666] Review Request: perl-Text-Xslate - Scalable template engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979666

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(psab...@redhat.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=EmgZ5XHmSC&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 979677] Review Request: perl-CPANPLUS-Dist-Fedora - CPANPLUS backend to build Fedora/RedHat RPMs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979677

Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||a.bad...@gmail.com

--- Comment #20 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  ---
I'm a bit confused by some of the comments made in this bugzilla report.  I
asked some questions in the FPC ticket that was opened about this:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/321

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ttLBR3Z3wg&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TC9D4ICE1A&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cicku...@gmail.com

--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng  ---
This package is in my repo ;) I've packaged it.

Issues besides Bjorn's:

1. Remove find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null ';'

This is a old mistake by extutils years ago, it's fixed now.

2. Why mark these as %doc:

*.pod eg ?

And I didn't push it to fedora review bwcause I can't test it with sybase
server, can you test it?

Thanks, and also please update your spec and srpm so we can review again.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OhfghlFtMo&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843

--- Comment #36 from Al Stone  ---
(In reply to Xose Vazquez Perez from comment #33)
> (In reply to Al Stone from comment #21)
> > (In reply to comment #18)
> 
> > >  Note: Package should obsolete pmtools - alternatives mechanism will
> > >  only work if the other package is alternatives-aware, and it appears
> > >  to contain an older version of the same tools. Coordinate the 
> > >  retirement of the obsoleted packages with the other package 
> > >  maintainers.
> > 
> > Obsoleting pmtools would remove the acpidump tool from Fedora; I actually
> > use it, and perhaps others do, too.  What I've done is provide a patch to
> > the pmtools package and filed a bug asking for pmtools to use the
> > alternatives
> > mechanism for acpixtract (the only command in common between the two
> > packages);
> > please see BZ#924442 for details.  I've also made that a blocker for this
> > bug.
> 
> 
> 
> pmtools(acpidump and acpixtract) package was abandoned.
> Former maintainer(Len Brown ) says:
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Xose Vazquez Perez [mailto:xose.vazq...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:19 PM
> > To: l...@kernel.org; Brown, Len
> > Subject: pmtools: where ??
> >
> > hi Len,
> >
> > http://lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/utilities.php is outdated.
> > And http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/utils/ is empty.
> >
> > where can I download latest pmtools ?
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject: RE: pmtools: where ??
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:28:39 +
> From: Brown, Len 
> To: Xose Vazquez Perez 
> 
> pmtools no longer exists.
> 
> acpidump is in the linux kernel tree
> under tools/power/acpi/
> 
> acpixract comes along with iasl in the acpica release
> on acpica.org.
> 
> cheers,
> -Len
>  End 
> 
> 
> acpidump.* :
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/
> power/acpi/

Note, too, that ACPICA now provides their own version of acpidump, and as of
the 20130626-1 I will add it to the acpica-tools package as an alternative to
the one from pmtools; it was added just after 20130517 was first packaged. 
I'll add a pointer to the 20130626-1 packages as soon as I have them done.

NB: lesswatts.org where the original pmtools source lived no longer exists.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BksCwcqp1q&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 904843] Review Request: acpica-tools - ACPICA tools for the development and debug of ACPI tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904843

Al Stone  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(a...@redhat.com)  |

--- Comment #35 from Al Stone  ---
(In reply to Paolo Bonzini from comment #34)
> Omitting PPC, SPARC and s390 support for iasl would be a regression.  On
> PPC, SPARC and s390 one can emulate an x86 system using qemu-system-x86. 
> Cross-compiling firmware is supported, and it uses the iasl binary.
> 
> The iasl package contains the necessary patches for big-endian support
> (unfortunately not supported upstream).
> 
> I don't know about the remaining tools; if it is not too hard it would be
> nice to have them too.

So far, I have not so much omitted these architectures as left them to the
porters for those architectures.  The original patches that provided this
support are still carried along for iasl; the spec file will allow the package
to be built on these architectures.  In theory, all of the other tools should
just work (in practice, that has not been tested).

I'll make some time to determine if the latest versions still work on these
architectures and if not, fix them.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tWPcXfW8KJ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 956304] Review Request: fts - File Transfer Service V3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956304

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
fts-3.1.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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=TtyyWhWMla&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987223] Review Request: campivisivi-titillium-fonts - Sans-serif typeface designed inside Campi Visivi's Type Design course

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987223

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
campivisivi-titillium-fonts-20120913-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6
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=TLnrlEhVvg&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986637] Review Request: ghc-mmorph - Monad morphisms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986637

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-mmorph-1.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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=RoKd6Xz3V9&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987204] Review Request: libevdev - Kernel Evdev Device Wrapper Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987204

--- Comment #7 from Peter Hutterer  ---
Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/libevdev.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/libevdev-0.2.1-1.fc19.src.rpm

Note that the second URL changed (new version for the pkgconfig changes), the
first remains the same.


Changes to previous version:
- pkg-config changes are now fixed upstream
- Requires: pkgconfig is now gone, I'm trusting rpm to handle that now :)
- devel package has {?_isa} added to Requires
- devel package dropped COPYING


remaining:
- no doc package, this is intentional
- make check crashes mutter - external fix
- rpmlint complains about "evdev". No, I did not mean "evade" :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XeN0XXbGqt&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 969209] Review Request: nx-libs - NX X11 protocol compression libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969209

--- Comment #11 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Oops, yeah:

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/nx/nx-libs-3.5.0.20-6.fc19.src.rpm

I'm trying to get some info out of upstream.  I'm not sure why it is even
calling setuid/setgid in the first place.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Fm4imlzcHp&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987153] Review Request: python-modernize - Modernizes Python code for eventual Python 3 migration

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987153

--- Comment #8 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-modernize
Short Description: Modernizes Python code for eventual Python 3 migration
Owners: toshio
Branches: f17 f18 f19 devel
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=RDbNbwIurE&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988105] Review Request: check-mssql-health - nagios check for mssql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988105

--- Comment #2 from Björn Esser  ---
Package has some (patialy severe) issues. :(  See report below.  Since you are
new to pkging rpms I suggest doing a step-by-step run here.

#

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

  ---> `Requires: perl-DBD-Sybase` would be correct, I suppose

- Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names).
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

  ---> use one or the other, don't mix

- Since you want to package for el5, too, I assume, you should add the
  following stuff:

* Group: (pick a suitable from /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.11.1/GROUPS)

* %install
  %{?el5:rm -rf %{buildroot}}

* %clean
  %{?el5:rm -rf %{buildroot}}


= 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

 ---> see later explanation

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.

 ---> add COPYING to %doc

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/988105-check-mssql-
 health/licensecheck.txt

 ---> License-tag is fine

[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.
[ ]: 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.

 ---> as explained above

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

 ---> package doesn't build binaries, so you should turn off debuginfo by
  adding `%global debug_package %{nil}` at the top of the spec-file

[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files

[Bug 969209] Review Request: nx-libs - NX X11 protocol compression libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969209

Eric Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||space...@gmail.com

--- Comment #10 from Eric Smith  ---
The SRPM link in comment 8 appears to be wrong or dead. It appears that it
should be .fc19 rather than .fc11.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nwSJlywheP&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

--- Comment #7 from Björn Esser  ---
There's just a small correction on the spec needed, because of
directory-ownership:

 %files
 %doc BUGS CHANGES README* *.pod eg
-%{perl_vendorarch}/*
+%{perl_vendorarch}/DBD/
+%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/DBD/
 %{_mandir}/man*/*

"%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/" is owned by `perl-libs` so your pkg MUST NOT own
them.

Please change these small bits, enhace changelog (use rpmdev-bumpspec and add a
comment about your changes using editor-of-choice), rebuild srpm, upload new
stuff and update the links.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SoZOOpCWWH&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987153] Review Request: python-modernize - Modernizes Python code for eventual Python 3 migration

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987153

--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt  ---
The '*' wildcard _never_ results in an unowned directory, except if the
_parent_ directory (and the parent's parent, and so on) belong into the
package. Hence

  %{python_sitelib}/*

includes _anything_ in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ (and anything includes
directories). The guidelines don't comment on that, because that's the trivial
case. On the contrary, if it had been

  %{python_sitelib}/libmodernize/*

the "libmodernize" directory would have been unowned:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Wildcarding_Files_inside_a_Created_Directory

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wXJfYqVBts&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985087] Review Request: hadoop - A software platform for processing vast amounts of data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985087

--- Comment #9 from Robert Rati  ---
Spec URL: http://rrati.fedorapeople.org/hadoop.spec
SRPM URL: http://rrati.fedorapeople.org/hadoop-2.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MzFVDUnVgQ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

--- Comment #6 from Björn Esser  ---
No issues found on this. :)

#

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

 ---> This is intentional on c-compiled perl-extensions

[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/988102-perl-DBD-
 Sybase/licensecheck.txt

 ---> License is derived from perl.  License-tag is fine

[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
 be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 10 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %c

[Bug 658754] Review Request: cubrid - a very fast and reliable open source SQL database server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658754

--- Comment #46 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> an RPM building error "no build id note found in" for cub_cmhttpd.

That ought to be explained in the spec file, at least:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo

Try to find out why you get that error? Does the build run "ld" instead of
gcc/g++ when linking? Then try adding --build-id to the linker flags or run the
compiler instead of ld.


> Which are the other 64-bit targets you are referring to?

Secondary 64-bit archs, such as ppc64, AArch64.


> The source may have empty files (for example some optional
> configuration files). This was to remove warnings and possible
> empty files from the source.

In the source or in the %buildroot? What empty "optional configuration files"
get installed into the %buildroot only to delete them afterwards? It would be
safer to delete them explicitly.


> if you have any suggestion to avoid name conflicts, please let us know.

On rather simple way is to put headers into a subdirectory of %includedir.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lrI52hvNMw&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 980960] Review Request: rpmgrill - utility for catching problems in koji builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980960

Ed Santiago  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6rDZlOBRBK&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985087] Review Request: hadoop - A software platform for processing vast amounts of data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985087

--- Comment #8 from Robert Rati  ---
Spec URL: http://rrati.fedorapeople.org/hadoop.spec
SRPM URL: http://rrati.fedorapeople.org/hadoop-2.0.5-2.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GKIKKW2eaP&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

--- Comment #5 from Marcus Asshauer  ---
Spec URL: http://mcas.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-DBD-Sybase.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mcas.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-DBD-Sybase-1.15-1.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZlOQ7leHBM&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

--- Comment #4 from Marcus Asshauer  ---
http://mcas.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-DBD-Sybase-1.15-1.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8DDl7UIQwK&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 974145] Review Request: bluez5 - Bluetooth v5 utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974145

Don Zickus  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(kevin@tigcc.tical
   ||c.org)

--- Comment #15 from Don Zickus  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #14)
> Use Obsoletes for that.

How would you obsolete packages that use bluez4?  Isn't that a rough guess at
best?

My understanding is that the API change will break all the bluez4 apps.  How do
you manage that from a packaging perspective?  You need to block the upgrade if
any package depends on bluez4 and does _not_ have a bluez5 component to migrate
too.

Having a separate bluez5 package makes that simpler to handle.  I am not sure
what rpm magic we can add to keep it inside one package.  But I defer to those
who have been here before.  Perhaps obsoletes can work, I just can't see how.

Cheers,
Don

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0plngVwhtK&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

--- Comment #3 from Marcus Asshauer  ---
rebuild and re-upload 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=cfDGYVgBDh&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

--- Comment #2 from Björn Esser  ---
spec inside srpm differs from the one provided by link.  Rebuild your srpm,
please, and re-upload.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vr2j4cJMDc&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

Björn Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||perl-DBD-Sybase

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2IzdRJf9Ay&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988105] Review Request: check-mssql-health - nagios check for mssql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988105

Björn Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
  Alias||check-mssql-health
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Björn Esser  ---
I'll take this 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=UjEVcvvgKk&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988105] Review Request: check-mssql-health - nagios check for mssql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988105

Marcus Asshauer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
 Depends On||988102

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SLw9uAGmMR&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

Marcus Asshauer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||988105

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OFy35tjVSp&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988105] New: Review Request: check-mssql-health - nagios check for mssql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988105

Bug ID: 988105
   Summary: Review Request: check-mssql-health - nagios check for
mssql databases
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@asshaueronline.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

Spec URL: http://mcas.fedorapeople.org/review/check-mssql-health.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mcas.fedorapeople.org/review/check-mssql-health-1.5.19.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: check-mssql-health is a plugin, which is used to monitor different
parameters of a MS SQL server.
Fedora Account System Username: mcas

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=atGOueL0iL&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

Björn Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Björn Esser  ---
I'll take this 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=p6xQuYVaZJ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 988102] New: Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase and MSSql databases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102

Bug ID: 988102
   Summary: Review Request: perl-DBD-Sybase - this package
provides an interface for perl to connect with Sybase
and MSSql databases
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@asshaueronline.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

Spec URL: http://mcas.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-DBD-Sybase.spec
SRPM URL: http://mcas.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-DBD-Sybase-1.15-1.src.rpm
Description: DBD::Sybase is a Perl module which works with the DBI module
to provide access to Sybase or MS-SQL databases.
Fedora Account System Username: mcas

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uEPwYZYiTp&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #26 from Gary Gatling  ---
Christopher,

Thanks so much for taking the time to review my package. Here is another
attempt at fixing the problems with it:


http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora19/spec/1/bumblebee.spec

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora19/SRPMS/bumblebee-3.2.1-2.fc19.src.rpm

Cheers,

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FNVZrhEa62&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 857138] Review Request: jackson2-jaxrs-json-provider - JAX-RS MessageBodyReader and -Writer implementations for JSON

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857138

--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Already exists, clearing flag.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3BszgiScH5&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 857138] Review Request: jackson2-jaxrs-json-provider - JAX-RS MessageBodyReader and -Writer implementations for JSON

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857138

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qjIVe1c6q0&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985247] Review Request: jackson-jaxrs-providers - Jackson JAX-RS providers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985247

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||984554

--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
*** Bug 857138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EVqp816lpW&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 857138] Review Request: jackson2-jaxrs-json-provider - JAX-RS MessageBodyReader and -Writer implementations for JSON

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857138

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
  Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
Last Closed||2013-07-24 11:14:44

--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
i apologize for the delay in answering.
yes, this package was includes in 
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-jaxrs-providers/
available at 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985247

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 985247 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=U6KPQswMVI&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 825347] Review Request: jersey - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825347

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
jersey-1.17.1-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jersey-1.17.1-4.fc19

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4yabBtz2uJ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 984846] Review Request: jipijapa - Improve application platform integration with JPA persistence providers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984846

Marek Goldmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann  ---
I'll take this for a review, tomorrow.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=734ay3P1ko&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987843] Review Request: python-bloom - A ROS release automation tool for catkin packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987843

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||richmat...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|richmat...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes  ---
I'll take this for 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=ii2im79BpE&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985818] Review Request: guacamole-server - Server-side native components that form the Guacamole proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985818

--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni  ---
Hello, any news on the review?

The client package [1] has already finished the review and is pending on this.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985814

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EB1euM2e1C&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 972346] Review Request: ros-common_msgs - Common ROS Messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972346

--- Comment #2 from Rich Mattes  ---
Right, I need to fix the BuildRequires.  I will do that later today.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RXvhnEPzhJ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 928584] Review Request: ros-std_msgs - Standard ROS Messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928584

--- Comment #4 from Rich Mattes  ---
So I removed the ros-* virtual provides from most of the packages; I'll update
this spec later tonight with the correct provides.

The gen{cpp,lisp,py} builds were only pushed a day or two ago, so they probably
won't make it into stable until next week.  You should be able to do rawhide
mock builds now (once I fix the BuildRequires)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=k1cwCR6xmo&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 927458] Review Request: rospack - ROS package and stack tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927458

--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sWa6LYv0Ew&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 927458] Review Request: rospack - ROS package and stack tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927458

Jon Ciesla  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=uxEcrFXyPf&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 927458] Review Request: rospack - ROS package and stack tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927458

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from Rich Mattes  ---
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: rospack 
Short Description: ROS package and stack tools
Owners: rmattes
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=XZBi894bPO&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 879740] Review Request: python-evdev - bindings for the linux input handling subsystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879740

--- Comment #1 from gvalkov  ---
I'm renewing my effort to get this into Fedora. Please consider this comment as
the official Review Request, instead of the one above.

Spec URL: http://gvalkov.fedorapeople.org/python-evdev-0.4.1/python-evdev.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gvalkov.fedorapeople.org/python-evdev-0.4.1/python-evdev-0.4.1-1.fc19.src.rpm

Description:
> Python-evdev provides bindings to the generic input event interface in Linux.
> The evdev interface serves the purpose of passing events generated in the
> kernel directly to userspace through character devices that are typically
> located in /dev/input/.

> Python-evdev also comes with bindings to uinput, the userspace input 
> subsystem.
> Uinput allows userspace programs to create and handle input devices from which
> input events can be directly injected into the input subsystem.

> $ rpmlint python-evdev-0.4.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
> python-evdev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user 
> space, user-space, users pace
> python-evdev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, 
> div
> python-evdev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u 
> input, Putin
> python-evdev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Uinput -> Input, U 
> input, Putin
> python-evdev.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

I am the upstream maintainer of python-evdev. This is also one of my first
package review requests. I would be thankful to anyone willing to sponsor me.  

Fedora Account System Username: gvalkov
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5651095

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2Xn5scbWLO&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987472] Review Request: undertow - Java web server using non-blocking IO

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987472

Jon Ciesla  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=q8jgIfsbM3&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987472] Review Request: undertow - Java web server using non-blocking IO

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987472

--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u7TB3cPmyM&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986567] Review Request:cinnamon-control-center - Utilities to configure the Cinnamon desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986567

Jon Ciesla  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=R3qqa2149e&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 986567] Review Request:cinnamon-control-center - Utilities to configure the Cinnamon desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986567

--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uhi4AMSgDl&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985640] Review Request: 2ping - Bi-directional ping utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985640

--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uEt1FeFvwW&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985640] Review Request: 2ping - Bi-directional ping utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985640

Jon Ciesla  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=dtSJksqL3G&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985396] Review Request: cdi-api1 - CDI API 1.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985396

Jon Ciesla  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=m3I38RgFVu&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985396] Review Request: cdi-api1 - CDI API 1.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985396

--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZVkZCRUrqQ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 975309] Review Request: libcutl - C++ utility library from Code Synthesis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975309

Jon Ciesla  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=wmdUrRTENt&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 975309] Review Request: libcutl - C++ utility library from Code Synthesis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975309

--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hf58zDgRm3&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987868] Review Request: bean-validation-api1 - Bean Validation API (JSR 303)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987868

Marek Goldmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mgold...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com

--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann  ---
Assigning it to me to block reviewing this bug. We'll see if it's strictly
required.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7GtYA7OUdb&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987881] Review Request: sisu-xmlrpc - A Java implementation of XML-RPC with Async Http Client support

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987881

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||987884

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bKsKdjhPyT&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 987884] Review Request: swizzle - Stream-based parsing code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987884

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||987881

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5eHgdG097R&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review