[Bug 988193] Review Request: elementary-xfce-icon-theme - elementary-xfce-icon-theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 hannes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from hannes --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: elementary-xfce-icon-theme Short Description: Icons for Xfce based on the elementary Project Icon Theme Owners: hannes Branches: f18 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=DM4lj0PE92&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821404] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404
--- Comment #33 from Steven Dake ---
Vasiliy,
pkgconfig is not needed as a buildrequires - see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires
I believe this directory is unowned. This can be fixed by using a %dir for the
directory name, unless dds comes from another package.
%{_libdir}/gimp/2.0/plug-ins/dds
Once these issues are fixed, please submit a new spec url and srpm url and I'll
sponsor you and wrap up the review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bjouzINGvG&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > Well, I'm not sure if thing related to bitcoin is approved now. It was never disapproved. ECC on the other hand is still banned, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HWMnUvbuR8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821404] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 Steven Dake 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=2om3yNIomB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #51 from Steven Dake --- Nicolas, Before I can sponsor you, I need to see 2-3 package reviews you have executed. If you are unable to review some packages to show you understand the packaging guidelines, I will be unable to sponsor you and step back from this review. Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=T0Ki95LYs6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Well, I'm not sure if thing related to bitcoin is approved now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7a9NHoIpZj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989068] Review Request: google-api-python-client - Google APIs Client Library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989068 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Whenever you have the time works for me :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3Ny9iCAfSp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970130] Review Request: git-extras - Little git extras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970130 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|git-extras-1.8.0-3.fc19 |git-extras-1.9.0-1.fc18 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- git-extras-1.9.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PKxhZS9JeO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982336] Review Request: python-dropbox - Official Dropbox REST API Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982336 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-dropbox-1.6-3.fc18 |python-dropbox-1.6-3.fc19 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-dropbox-1.6-3.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=CY6SH3F3aA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982336] Review Request: python-dropbox - Official Dropbox REST API Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982336 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-dropbox-1.6-3.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-07-27 21:07:08 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-dropbox-1.6-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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=2xIT5Y7iEN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 983922] Review Request: compat-SFML16 - Simple and Fast Multimedia Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983922 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||compat-SFML16-1.6-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-07-27 21:05:41 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- compat-SFML16-1.6-1.fc19, SFML-2.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=46ADwreJld&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974889] Review Request: rubygem-mysql2 - A simple, fast Mysql library for Ruby, binding to libmysql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974889 --- Comment #6 from Alex Chernyakhovsky --- Hi Ken, I've updated the latest at the same URLs as before: Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/achernya/www/fedora/rubygem-mysql2.spec SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/achernya/www/fedora/rubygem-mysql2-0.3.11-1.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=3cTM1SaoJa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985916] Review Request: compat-gtkhtml314 - GtkHTML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985916 --- Comment #4 from Peter Ajamian --- Manually reviewing the licensing in the files: gtkhtml/htmlentity.c is listed as "Unknown or generated", it has a clear LGPL2+ header in it, but it is part way down in the file. ltmain.sh is generated from libtool and does actually have a GPL2+ license header with an exception which says that the generated file can be included under the same terms as the rest of the program. I don't think it's right or correct to modify the licensing headers of upstream sources, even simply to correct the FSF address. The license of the sources taken as a whole is pretty clear that it's LGPL2+ for the libraries and GPL2+ for the executables. Please note also that these exact sources have been distributed by Fedora in the past, continue to be distributed by Fedora in the archives, and newer versions of these sources are currently distributed by Fedora in all current versions up to and including rawhide. If there's a problem with the licensing here then it really needs to be reviewed for all versions of this package that have been and continue to be distributed by Fedora and will affect many many other packages that depend on these libs as well (both past and present). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O0YdAv8lql&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982161] Review Request: python-kapteyn - The Kapteyn Python Astronomy package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982161 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- You might have to raise an exception at FPC if 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=ShrxjPBhZu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982161] Review Request: python-kapteyn - The Kapteyn Python Astronomy package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982161 --- Comment #8 from Sergio Pascual --- Hi, regarding mpfit, the original code is here: http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/cmpfit.html The code has been modified to interface with Python. The number and types of the arguments is different in the included mpfit.c and in the upstream mpfit.c Even if cmpfit gets packaged, kapteyn will need it's own version. Is this still considered bundling? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A7d5JYG8ai&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng --- We don't need to care about bash, in fact they are installed as default in Fedora. Guideline has rules. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=b4EBOsHBd8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mattias.ellert@fy | |sast.uu.se) | --- Comment #23 from Mattias Ellert --- Sorry, I didn't notice this comment. It was added only 1½ day before the bug was closed by bodhi, Thanks for the reminder. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wQ4XtYZfUb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- canl-c++-1.0.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/canl-c++-1.0.0-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=In05e8DbgK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- canl-c++-1.0.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/canl-c++-1.0.0-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Fffv5hYeNp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- canl-c++-1.0.0-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/canl-c++-1.0.0-3.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=X5ijtxbD36&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- canl-c++-1.0.0-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/canl-c++-1.0.0-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xrWz1P0UMz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989132] Review Request: rubygem-sanitize - Whitelist-based HTML sanitizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989132 Axilleas Pipinellis changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Axilleas Pipinellis --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-sanitize Short Description: Whitelist-based HTML sanitizer Owners: axilleas Branches: f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8sIuprHlXn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989132] Review Request: rubygem-sanitize - Whitelist-based HTML sanitizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989132 --- Comment #2 from Axilleas Pipinellis --- Thanks for the review :) Both those issues you mentioned are forgotten ones from previous packaging attempt. I will fix them and push the updated spec to repos. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3AM87TFgF2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985916] Review Request: compat-gtkhtml314 - GtkHTML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985916
Igor Gnatenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. |
|com)|
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko ---
Created attachment 779225
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=779225&action=edit
info about licenses
Fix this and provide new spec and src.rpm please.
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]: 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.
[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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in compat-
gtkhtml314-devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or
later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/brain/985916-compat-
gtkhtml314/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note: %define gnome_icon_theme_ve
[Bug 976052] Review Request: snmp4j - The Object Oriented SNMP API for Java Managers and Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976052 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/snmp4j.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/snmp4j-2.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm - rebuilt with XMvn support - adapt to current guideline New Package SCM Request === Package Name: snmp4j Short Description: The Object Oriented SNMP API for Java Managers and Agents Owners: gil Branches: f19 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RoGli7CjOE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989132] Review Request: rubygem-sanitize - Whitelist-based HTML sanitizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989132
Ken Dreyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer ---
Thanks for packaging this.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- The spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM. The .spec
BuildRequires: rubygem(nokogiri) >= 1.4.4, whereas the RPM contains an
unversioned BR. This does not block the review, particularly since 1.4.4 is
such an old nokogiri version (F19 currenly ships with nokogiri 1.5.9).
- You don't need to run "rm -rf test" within %check. This does not block the
review, but since it's probably a holdover from when the tests were bundled
separately (2.0.4), I recommend removing this line.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
sanitize-doc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Yes, MIT.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[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).
Ruby:
[-]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
= 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.
Upstream already ships LICENSE file
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[
[Bug 989143] New: Review Request: rubygem-charlock_holmes - Character encoding detecting library for Ruby using ICU
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989143 Bug ID: 989143 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-charlock_holmes - Character encoding detecting library for Ruby using ICU Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: axill...@archlinux.gr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-charlock_holmes/rubygem-charlock_holmes.spec SRPM URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-charlock_holmes/rubygem-charlock_holmes-0.6.9.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Character encoding detecting library for Ruby using ICU Fedora Account System Username: axilleas Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5665438 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3yOZ0zImyp&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977132] Review Request: nodejs-lodash - A low-level utility library delivering consistency and customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977132 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-lodash-1.3.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-lodash-1.3.1-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IDzcOpWHkx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974889] Review Request: rubygem-mysql2 - A simple, fast Mysql library for Ruby, binding to libmysql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974889 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer --- Hi Vít, I've tried quite hard to get mysqld to properly start and stop in mock, without success. Also, I don't think that the tests ought to hold up the package review. Do you agree? Alex, can you please post links to your latest spec and SRPM? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Dw7SVDyIY9&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986715 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-cairocffi-0.5.1-3.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=IyY6AYlhYe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989132] New: Review Request: rubygem-sanitize - Whitelist-based HTML sanitizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989132 Bug ID: 989132 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-sanitize - Whitelist-based HTML sanitizer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: axill...@archlinux.gr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-sanitize/rubygem-sanitize.spec SRPM URL: http://axilleas.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rubygem-sanitize/rubygem-sanitize-2.0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Sanitize is a whitelist-based HTML sanitizer. Given a list of acceptable elements and attributes, Sanitize will remove all unacceptable HTML from a string. Fedora Account System Username: axilleas Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5665200 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cnEGGo8j78&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.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=4xjFVTlXiC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 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=mQiauDbyBn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917191] Review Request: awake - A command to 'wake on LAN' a remote host
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917191 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- awake-1.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/awake-1.0-1.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=8VDG5uqw0B&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917191] Review Request: awake - A command to 'wake on LAN' a remote host
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917191 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- awake-1.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/awake-1.0-1.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=SITjBCC0z9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917191] Review Request: awake - A command to 'wake on LAN' a remote host
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917191 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=YCDIBhSgjS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 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=no054XXFDs&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gmqcc-0.2.9-1.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=0eaNnT70kS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se Flags||needinfo?(mattias.ellert@fy ||sast.uu.se) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7ify3ZMxxz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952229] Review Request: canl-c++ - EMI Common Authentication library - bindings for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952229
Björn Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
Resolution|ERRATA |---
Keywords||Reopened
--- Comment #18 from Björn Esser ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #13)
> > Name: canl-c++
> > Group: Development/Libraries
>
> "System Environment/Libraries" is the group for run-time library base
> packages. The alternative is to not define the old Group tag anymore.
>
>
> > %files devel
> > %defattr(-,root,root,-)
>
> %defattr is not needed anymore for any of the active distribution releases.
>
>
> > %{_libdir}/libcanl_c++.so
> > %{_includedir}/%{name}/canlxx.h
>
> Directory %{_includedir}/%{name} is not included.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
Fixed in any new release? If reporter won't fix until 2013-08-12, I'll push a
fixed release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wmz5D9oNWe&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829676] Review Request: pyelftools - Pure-Python library for parsing and analyzing ELF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829676 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #16 from Björn Esser --- No interest in bringing this into SCM? Kushal, Terje? If there won't be any response on this until 2013-08-12, I'll file an SCM request on this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q63xyuZ4kr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976052] Review Request: snmp4j - The Object Oriented SNMP API for Java Managers and Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976052
Gerard Ryan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Gerard Ryan ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Maven packages should use new style packaging
Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in snmp4j-
javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/grdryn/976052-snmp4j/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
or update to latest guidelines
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Pac
[Bug 976052] Review Request: snmp4j - The Object Oriented SNMP API for Java Managers and Agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976052 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ger...@ryan.lt Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ger...@ryan.lt 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=9PpiGtbXRc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 --- Comment #7 from Dennis Gilmore --- 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=NsMIMTLmVd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 Dennis Gilmore 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=hfyjq0iHEw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 --- Comment #4 from Dennis Gilmore --- 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=qU5IkyyqSw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 Dennis Gilmore 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=iE5xbFQF1T&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984360] Review Request: joyce - Amstrad PCW and PCW16 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984360 Dennis Gilmore 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=xtSihotoZT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984360] Review Request: joyce - Amstrad PCW and PCW16 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984360 --- Comment #13 from Dennis Gilmore --- 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=lUbJKRw207&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988890] Review Request: rubygem-sass-twitter-bootstrap - Gem of the Twitter Bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988890 Axilleas Pipinellis changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||894524 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DAZMctr4sc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894524] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-console - OpenShift Origin Management Console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894524 Axilleas Pipinellis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||axill...@archlinux.gr Depends On||988890 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=x2cXnXWG6V&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Gerard Ryan --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jdf-stacks-client Short Description: JBoss Stacks Parser Owners: galileo Branches: f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ecOPdunF0s&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 --- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan --- Thanks for the review! :) (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1) > Problem(s): > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > please, can ask if upstream to include license text file? Done. I've created a PR on Github to include it: https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/pull/5 > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/archive/1.0.2.CR2.tar.gz > is available, consider upgrading I haven't packaged 1.0.2.CR2 because I think CR2 is probably considered a pre-release. Since I don't need anything specifically from the pre-release, I think having the latest 'Final'/stable is better for now. When 1.0.2.Final is released, I'll be sure to update to that :) > why dont use > https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/archive/1.0.1.Final.tar.gz ? > regards I've done it this way because of the recommendations for using github tarballs as sources. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZWjgpwEDrM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gmqcc Short Description: Improved Quake C Compiler Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f19 InitialCC: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2lyqBP2Szq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Björn Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Björn Esser ---
Package is fine now! :)
#
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]: 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
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qcvm
---> false positive, not needed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989112-gmqcc/licensecheck.txt
---> License is fine
[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 51200 bytes in 11 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
---> taken from sources, will be upstream in next release
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and bu
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec new SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc-0.2.9-1.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=6Qn3Up57dQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Yxdjh5b8tf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5664763 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8iW1WGl2e7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958533] Review Request: android-json-org-java - Androids rewrite of the evil licensed Json.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958533 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-json-org-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-json-org-java-4.2.2-0.1.r1.2.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=yoL5D0b6Lr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837450] Review Request: android - Google Android Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837450 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/android-4.1.1.4-1.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=qoh5kcg9ac&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989112] Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Björn Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Björn Esser ---
Some issue are present. :( See comments in report.
#
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
---> add this to spec-file:
%prep
...
# rpmlint complains about 'configure-without-libdir-spec' which
# you can safely ignore, because we are creating a dummy-configure
# here, just for %%configure exporting the proper
# compiler/linker-flags from redhat-rpm-config.
#
echo '#!/bin/sh' > ./configure
chmod +x ./configure
%build
%configure
...
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qcvm
---> not needed, will be usable standalone
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> issues are present
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989112-gmqcc/licensecheck.txt
---> License-tag is fine
[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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
---> s/builtin/built-in
[-]: 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 20480 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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the
[Bug 989112] New: Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112 Bug ID: 989112 Summary: Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec SRPM URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5664261 Description: GMQCC: Modern written-from-scratch compiler for the QuakeC language with support for many common features found in other QC compilers. QCVM: Executor for QuakeC VM binary files created using a QC compiler such as gmqcc or fteqcc. It provides a small set of builtin functions, and by default executes the main function if there is one. Some options useful for debugging are available as well. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CbGO3tpuAv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849496] Review Request: webbit - Event-based WebSocket and HTTP server for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849496 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- excuse me, which version of Fedora you want to use this package? regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hYPhUHsQKS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 971431] Review Request: jboss-ejb-3.2-api - Enterprise JavaBeans 3.2 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971431 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XgYl337oeD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jdf-stacks-
client-javadoc
[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:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
license.
[!]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: If tests are skipped during package build explain why it was needed in a
comment
Note: Tests seem to be skipped. Verify there is a commment giving a
reason for this
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pUNRWUY67W&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||989106 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1VbXdHVDPN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989014] Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hlv2HZLBgb&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt --- Do what works for you. I'm not here to argue about which way to do it or whether a non-existant "touch" is worth supporting. I've only mentioned the purpose of those "|| :". The following page has been pointed at before: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UzdpYl5mWL&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986608 --- Comment #7 from Eric Smith --- Absent? The python-cairocffi update is submitted and there is a koji build root override in place, so weasyprint builds successfully in koji. Next week is fine. Thanks for reviewing! Eric -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JdJ6OMxHIf&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 --- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #11) see also http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10319652/check-if-a-file-is-executable http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/sect_07_01.html Honestly, I would say that touch and gtk-update-icon-cache should be expected to be there on a good working Xfce system. PS: What if bash is not installed? SCNR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=q9ZCYs8FSM&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 --- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #10) … > First of all, don't compare "touch" with "gtk-update-icon-cache". While > touch is a coreutils tool, gtk-update-icon-cache may not be installed. > That's why you want the scriptlets to _not_ fail when trying to run > gtk-update-icon-cache when it isn't found. Secondly, in the odd case that > "touch" is not available either, you could not touch the icon dirs, so the > scriptlets would fail, too. … I suggest to use 'if [ -x "$file" ]' therefore, where $file means '/usr/bin/touch' and '/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache'. It could skip the whole touch or gtk-update-icon-cache calls individually cause of one false check at the beginning without trying several times to execute something that does not exist or is not marked as executable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yI96SpNW8h&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989068] Review Request: google-api-python-client - Google APIs Client Library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989068 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- Will review in Monday, is it ok for you? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0swfTusn77&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989069] New: Review Request: python-uri-templates - A Python implementation of URI Template
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989069 Bug ID: 989069 Summary: Review Request: python-uri-templates - A Python implementation of URI Template Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-uri-templates/python-uri-templates.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-uri-templates/python-uri-templates-0.5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is a Python implementation of RFC6570, URI Template, and can expand templates up to and including Level 4 in that specification. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Vz1cudUD04&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989068] New: Review Request: google-api-python-client - Google APIs Client Library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989068 Bug ID: 989068 Summary: Review Request: google-api-python-client - Google APIs Client Library for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/google-api-python-client/google-api-python-client.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/google-api-python-client/google-api-python-client-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Written by Google, this library provides a small, flexible, and powerful Python client library for accessing Google APIs. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TC1mrnlm20&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986608 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- cairocffi is absent. I'll handle this in the next week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DAho5umyLg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915920] Review Request: qt5-qtsvg - Qt5 - QtSvg component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915920 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- I need this package, I will take it. First question, can we rename it to qtsvg5? Why qt5 packages are named with qt5 prefix? Or just keep things then add virtual provides? And, 5.1.0 is out, please update the spec and srpm. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0C9k0qOAd8&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988102
--- Comment #13 from Björn Esser ---
Thanks for the hint, Michael!
#
Marcus, let me get all needed spec-changes together here:
...snip...
find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
find %{buildroot} -type f -name '*.bs' -a -size 0 -exec rm -f {} ';'
find %{buildroot} -type f -name '*.pod' -exec rm -f {} ';'
-find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null ';'
%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
...snip...
%files
%doc BUGS CHANGES README* *.pod eg
-%{perl_vendorarch}/*
+%{perl_vendorarch}/DBD/
+%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/DBD/
%{_mandir}/man*/*
...snip...
#
These two changes should bring spec, and therefor build rpms, in perfect shape
for production. You can do them during SCM-import. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YA81Xh8YVx&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt ---
The scriptlets are wrong, though, and inconsistant.
> Just keep the same style with postun and posttrans.
Better forget about "style" and make them correct.
First of all, don't compare "touch" with "gtk-update-icon-cache". While touch
is a coreutils tool, gtk-update-icon-cache may not be installed. That's why you
want the scriptlets to _not_ fail when trying to run gtk-update-icon-cache when
it isn't found. Secondly, in the odd case that "touch" is not available either,
you could not touch the icon dirs, so the scriptlets would fail, too.
> %post
> 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 ||:
All three dirs are included in the package. And it's proper usage of "|| :"
here for allow for a missing "touch" command.
> %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
Here, "|| :" should be added at the end of all lines. It makes no sense to add
it to just the last line, because the previous two lines would fail already if
gtk-update-icon-cache didn't exist. Similarly for "touch".
> %posttrans
> 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 ||:
Same here. "|| :" at the end of all lines would achieve what it's supposed to
do.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BFyarZ285b&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 953514] Review Request: varnish-vmod-querystring - QueryString VMOD for Varnish
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953514 --- Comment #8 from Dridi Boukelmoune --- Hi, During the last months, the version 0.2 of the module, Fedora 19, and Varnish 3.0.4 have been released :) Since Varnish 3.0.4 hasn't been packaged yet, I've made new packages for Varnish 3.0.3 on Fedora 19: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-vmod-querystring.spec https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-vmod-querystring-0.2-1.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=PbBCGoswtr&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8) > Why do you think that? Note that all three directories are included in the > package. Just keep the same style with postun and posttrans. Besides this package is approved now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Fi1BQ4cqw5&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt --- Why do you think that? Note that all three directories are included in the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2jzoINE8EZ&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng ---
%post
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 ||:
I think it should be
%post
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 ||:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iT4z74iEia&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov --- Why blocking FE-LEGAL? I don't see any specific issues within the code - no problematic licensing, or Elliptic Curve Crypto usage. Actually bitcoin mining, contrary to bitcoin *usage*, doesn't involves any complex algorithms - it's just a sha256 calculation and comparison, so this shouldn't concern anyone. Please elaborate your concerns before blindly trigger FE-LEGAL. Meanwhile I'm going to unblock it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3APV30I2nD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972237] Review Request: vcsh - Manage config files in homedirs via fake bare git repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972237 --- Comment #8 from Dridi Boukelmoune --- Hi, I've started packaging vcsh on my own and ended up merging my work with what's already been done here :). It's also based on a more recent version from a couple days ago. I've taken care of packaging issues with a patch I haven't sent to the upstream, because the upstream project apparently maintains separate branches for packaging. So the patch would probably not land in the master branch. Source RPM and SPEC: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Hlm3i6Y3WV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985129] Review Request: text2nato - text converter to nato phonetic alphabet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985129
--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt ---
There are several issues. For example, see comment 4. I hope I've found all of
them, but I could not find a working package:
* It would be helpful, if with each new release of your package, you provided a
tested pair of src.rpm and spec file at a direct download location, so tools
like fedora-review/wget/curl could access them directly:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Upload_Your_Package
* Run rpmlint (or rpmlint -I for more helpful output) on the src.rpm and all
built rpms. Feel free to ignore obvious false positives in the report, but fix
anything else. Preferably add a comment here about whether/when you think what
rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect.
* The src.rpm package is incomplete and doesn't build at all yet. The reason is
simple (but easy to miss when only skimming over the spec), it contains only
the spec file, not the program script:
cp: cannot stat 'text2nato': No such file or directory
In the %install section, the spec file assumes that this file exists in the
current directory, the "build directory", but there is nothing that copies it
to that location. There is no %prep section in the spec file where you would
set up the builddir and copy the file into it.
Since you don't need the builddir, you don't need a %prep section. However,
there is no "Source" tag in the spec file either, which would point at the
download location for the text2nato script. Therefore, that file is not
available and not included in your src.rpm yet. If, for example, you pointed
the Source0 tag at the file's download URL (test it via "spectool -g
text2nato.spec"), you could access the file via %{SOURCE0} in the %install
section.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
I can't tell how you've built the src.rpm so far, but there's a fundamental
error in how you do it.
* Bogus date in %changelog warning when building the rpm: "Fri Jul 23 2013"
needs to be fixed to either Jul 26 or Tue.
* cp -p text2nato %{_bindir}/
This is a line you've added recently. Why? The previous line that copies the
file into %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} is fine. Files in %buildroot get included in
the package via the %files section. This new line makes the build fail (when
not building as "root"), and the package must install into the %buildroot
directory, not into the system's file system.
* Licensing: See comment 6.
* %changelog: The RPM package changelog is for packaging related comments.
Typically, you would not list all the changes in the text2nato script, but only
anything relevant that has changed in the package. For a tiny package like
this, that wouldn't be a lot.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
* Just a Perl script -> package should set "BuildArch: noarch"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8pG4B1EAYa&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988193 hannes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(johannes.lips@goo | |glemail.com)| --- Comment #6 from hannes --- Ok, added it, since http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache says so. Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/elementary-xfce-icon-theme.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/elementary-xfce-icon-theme-0.3-3.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=yYeaHgwT1M&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
