[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 #36 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/gimp-dds-plugin/master/gimp-dds-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/gimp-dds-plugin/2.2.1/2.fc20.R/src/gimp-dds-plugin-2.2.1-2.fc20.R.src.rpm 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=0lDsf9qzM6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988489] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows you to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988489 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vasc...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Vasiliy Glazov --- I think my reviw request was first. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lQDTFzTIaZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985753] Review Request: dfuzzer - Fuzzer for processes connected to D-Bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985753
Veaceslav Mindru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mind...@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Hello Matus Marhefka ,
I don't see any more errors reported by rpmlint so GJ. I recommend to correct
this.
> install -pm 0755 src/dfuzzer %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables
Statically Linking Executables
Static linkage is a special exception and should be decided on a
case-by-case basis. The packager must provide rationale for linking statically,
including precedences where available, to FESCO for approval.
If you link statically against a library, add yourself to the initialcc
list for the library so you can watch for any security issues or bug fixes for
which you'd want to rebuild your package against a new version of the library.
Here are instructions for making that request.
VM
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PDRHVGw3y1&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: gtk-vim-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446
Veaceslav Mindru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mind...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Hello David ,
I think this should be corrected.
>Source0:gtk-vim-syntax-20130716.tar.gz
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
Source0: The full URL for the compressed archive containing the (original)
pristine source code, as upstream released it. "Source" is synonymous with
"Source0". If you give a full URL (and you should), its basename will be used
when looking in the SOURCES directory. If possible, embed %{name} and
%{version}, so that changes to either will go to the right place. Preserve
timestamps when downloading source files. If there is more than one source,
name them Source1, Source2 and so on. If you're adding whole new files in
addition to the pristine sources, list them as sources after the pristine
sources. A copy of each of these sources will be included in any SRPM you
create, unless you specifically direct otherwise. See Source URL for more
information on special cases (e.g. revision control).
I still can see errors reported by rpmlint
[mindruv@localhost tmp]$ rpmlint gtk-vim-syntax.spec
gtk-vim-syntax.spec:15: W: non-standard-group Application/Editors
gtk-vim-syntax.spec: W: no-%build-section
gtk-vim-syntax.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: gtk-vim-syntax-20130716.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[mindruv@localhost tmp]$
>#URL: http://physics.muni.cz/~yeti/vim/
I would also recommend to drop comments if not carrying vital information. As
this is waste of bytes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wPJj4510gp&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel(TM) files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary_or_Description -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AtVyiZ8VYz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988489] Review Request: gimp-plugin-dds - A plugin for GIMP allows you to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988489 Luya Tshimbalanga changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin |gimp-plugin-dds - A plugin |for GIMP allows you to |for GIMP allows you to |load/save in the DDS format |load/save in the DDS format --- Comment #13 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #12) > I think my reviw request was first. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 Ah good to know, in that case I leave you the updated spec to help you packaging: SRPMS: http://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gimp-plugin-dds-2.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm SPEC: http://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/gimp-plugin-dds.spec Hope it helps. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SgYNXmpj91&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984791] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984791 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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=MTBHqncx30&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984800] Review Request: ghc-monad-logger - Monads for logging messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984800 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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=sda82nvqQY&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 Luya Tshimbalanga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #37 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- *** Bug 988489 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=GwJ79t5Ara&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988489] Review Request: gimp-plugin-dds - A plugin for GIMP allows you to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988489 Luya Tshimbalanga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-07-30 03:46:24 --- Comment #14 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- I am closing this report to avoid duplicating the work if Igor doesn't mind. I have another package for review #989359. Thank you for the helps. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 821404 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uQVB0K9BR7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
Björn Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Björn Esser ---
I'll take this.
#
Have CC'ed Petr Pisar (ppisar), because he's the maintainer of "old"
SDL-branch. Some colab might be helpful on this, I think.
SDL2 is in RC state itm. Do you ITP SDL_{image,mixer}2 as well?
#
He goes the first review-run. Issues found. :(
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
---> What??? Can't find anything java-related in the pkg...
Must be a bug in f-r, then. I'll ignore this for now.
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
---> rebuild srpm, plz.
- Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-devel,
SDL2-static
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
---> false-positive (possible bug), are present in arched-form
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
---> nothing java-releated here, see above
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
---> nothing java-releated here, see above
- all files in %doc have wrong end-of-line encoding
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
---> use sed -i -e's!\r!!g' $file on them, please
= 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.
[x]: Static libraries in -static 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.
[?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-static
---> is solved by requires devel-subpkg
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> issues present
[!]: 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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "zlib/libpng". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt
---> License tag should be zlib and BSD and GPLv2+ and 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.
[?]: 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.
---> This will be co-existing with "old" SDL?
[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 justificat
[Bug 970407] Review Request: mingw-libtheora - Theora Video Compression Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970407
Veaceslav Mindru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mind...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Hello Steve,
Spec looks good, rpmlint dose not report E/W. just some small modifications
needed.
remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT it's not required any more in EPEL6
>%install
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
same story here
>%clean
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
The %clean section is not required for F-13 and above. Each package for F-12
and below (or EPEL 5) MUST have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2xk6VKalBO&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970405] Review Request: mingw-speex - A voice compression format (codec)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970405 Veaceslav Mindru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mind...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Veaceslav Mindru --- Hello Steve, same sorry here. Remove rm buildroot in %install section and remove %clean section. >%install >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT >%clean >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VgLgRNYeT4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||989946 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lF7tetRc9r&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988489] Review Request: gimp-plugin-dds - A plugin for GIMP allows you to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988489
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt ---
> gimp-fourier-plugin
> gimp-lqr-plugin
Those names seem to be okay, because the naming scheme is %{parent}-%{child}
with %parent being "gimp":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29
If one reversed the order of the two name parts in %child, the %parent prefix
would stay the same and would help with listing packages that are named gimp*.
| gimp-high-pass-filter
| gimp-normalmap
| gimp-resynthesizer
Those are plug-in packages without "-plugin" in their name.
A user, who lists "gimp-plugin*" to find add-on packages, will have trouble
finding all these, however that's the user's mistake. Just look at "yum list
gimp*", for example.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zlY0taufVd&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||Review_Request_SDL2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TiqvtNOrwx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: gtk-vim-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #4 from Veaceslav Mindru --- Hello David , i take my words back regarding Source0, this is compliant with. Source0 requirements , however i think you should remove comments: >#URL: http://physics.muni.cz/~yeti/vim/ >#Source0: http://www.vim.org/scripts/download_script.php?src_id=20534 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL VM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=teZ46K8mEM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 965835] Review Request: mingw-protobuf - Protocol Buffers - Google's data interchange format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965835
Veaceslav Mindru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mind...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Hello Steve,
Please remove rm -rf under %install.
>rm -rf %{buildroot}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section
Following E/W are reported by rpmlint.
mingw-protobuf.spec:295: W: macro-in-comment %doc
mingw-protobuf.spec:315: W: macro-in-comment %doc
mingw-protobuf.spec:321: W: macro-in-comment %doc
mingw-protobuf.spec:327: W: macro-in-comment %doc
mingw-protobuf.spec:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab:
line 26)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tz3cl5cn1u&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985190] Review Request: python-django-memcached-pool - A Memcached Pool for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985190 --- Comment #3 from Marcelo Barbosa "firemanxbr" --- Hi Yohan, Now is run, but check this issues: 1) License:(Verify) In your package this command "licensecheck" resulted Apache (v2.0) about this file: https://github.com/mozilla/django-memcached-pool/blob/master/LICENCE, and fedora-review reported this files: Unknown or generated /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/django-memcached-pool-64262f7feb5b501955ff542692571a1e60dce985/memcachepool/cache.py /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/django-memcached-pool-64262f7feb5b501955ff542692571a1e60dce985/memcachepool/client.py /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/django-memcached-pool-64262f7feb5b501955ff542692571a1e60dce985/memcachepool/pool.py /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/django-memcached-pool-64262f7feb5b501955ff542692571a1e60dce985/memcachepool/tests/__init__.py /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/django-memcached-pool-64262f7feb5b501955ff542692571a1e60dce985/memcachepool/tests/settings.py /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/django-memcached-pool-64262f7feb5b501955ff542692571a1e60dce985/memcachepool/tests/test_cache.py /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/django-memcached-pool-64262f7feb5b501955ff542692571a1e60dce985/setup.py 2) Main URL:(Suggestion) Verify main page about your package, the variable URL in spec is "pypi" page, but SOURCE0 download main page in https://github.com/mozilla/django-memcached-pool. 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=8vFL6pWtTO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||848144 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9xFjgpZocj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||989752 ||(Review_Request_SDL2) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8IfdgkV5F8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989400] Review Request: rubygem-mini_portile - Simplistic port-like solution for developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989400
--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #2)
> Hello, Thank you for initial comments!
>
> (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #1)
> > Hi Mamoru,
> >
> > Thanks for submitting the package. Here's a couple questions.
> >
> > 1. In %prep, I haven't seen this "tmpunpackdir" convention in many other
> > gems, and I don't see it referenced in the Ruby packaging guidelines. If
> > this convention is necessary for mini_portile, could you please add a
> > comment to the .spec file indicating why this is necessary?
>
> This is my convension, to explicitly clarify that unpacking gem file is
> done under the directory created by %setup -q -c -T
> (i.e. to make it sure that no files are left after %clean is done:
> using %setup after unpacking gem is confusing, and I remember that
> old rpm unpacked source on unexpected directory when %setup was not
> yet called)
That is good convention. We should similarly update the packaging guidelines.
Although it would be worth of some macros, since the things gets a bit ugly.
> > 2. There is a section in %prep where you run "chmod 0644" on all the .rb
> > files. From what I can see by running "gem unpack" by hand on
> > mini_portile-0.5.1.gem, the single .rb file is already 644. In other words,
> > it looks to me as if this step is unnecessary. Can you remove it from your
> > .spec file?
>
> For safety. I have seen many times that .rb's have executable permission.
If it was me, I would correct only stuff rpmlint reports. Doing some actions
without real need is superfluous and does .spec files less readable. But this
is not blocker.
> > 3. From what I read in the current Ruby packaging guidelines, "gem build" is
> > supposed to happen in %build. In your package, it happens in %prep. If there
> > is a reason for this deviation, can you please clarify it in a comment in
> > the .spec?
>
> Because I clean up tmpunpack dir. Here I want to make it sure that no
> garbage files are left. (note that gem build is to repackage gem, and not
> building something actually)
This is related to first point and it does not matter in which section the
"build" is done.
> > 4. I'm curious about this line:
> > %doc %{gem_instdir}/[A-Z]*
> >
> > Why not just specify LICENSE.txt explicitly here? From my understanding of
> > the Ruby packaging guidelines, the History.txt and README.rdoc files belong
> > in the -doc subpackage.
>
> README.rdoc must be in main (this is why "README" exists). Also it is quite
> common that "History" file is in main.
I agree with Ken at this point, but we might disagree. This is not a blocker.
> > 5. Regarding these lines:
> >
> > # Currently no useful
> > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/examples/
> >
> > The comment should read "Currently not useful". Also, can you please expand
> > the comment to explain why it would not be useful to ship the example
> > Rakefile in that directory?
>
> Rakefile is something like "Makefile" on autotool-based tarballs, which we
> don't usually package into binary rpms (also calling "rake" is discouraged
> in current guideline)
This is example in its real sense, i.e. it pretty much corresponds with
appropriate section of README.rdoc [1] and it is out of question that it should
stay in -doc subpackage.
[1]
https://github.com/luislavena/mini_portile#how-can-i-combine-this-with-my-compilation-task
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sAtRJIqML0&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] New: Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 Bug ID: 989960 Summary: Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ti.eug...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf.spec SRPM URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf-0.9.9-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Qt-based DBF viewer Fedora Account System Username: tieugene Koji builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5676765EL6 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5676777f18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5676811f19 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5676847f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m0Q8FdMh5l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Trivial -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ITta81GVpr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov --- I'd like to see Koji scratchbuild logs. Igor in the future please provide link to the Koji build as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4Uoi5zwKkj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov --- * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a technical rationale behind this? * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GJPCHYRm8P&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=I5lQjwx8Oa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a > technical rationale behind this? No. SDL1 use it. > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. this only for rhel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Yc83W6TjLz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 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=xWfKjAM8Ne&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 Marek Mahut changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? needinfo+|fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marek Mahut --- Troy, good to know :) I missed that update. This review request is 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=JqHxTtE6t6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #4) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > > * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a > > technical rationale behind this? > No. SDL1 use it. That's not a valid reason. So please remove it since we shouldn't encourage static libraries usage and even packaging. > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. > this only for rhel That's not an explanation either. Please disable it. Also you enabled it wrongly so I'm assuming that you didn't test it. That's a bad sign - a maintainer enables things which he doesn't even tests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cxXjAxjERz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #14 from Björn Esser --- Has been resubmitted by ignatenkobrain. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 989752 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=U9ejyOX2Dz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) CC||bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Björn Esser --- *** Bug 848144 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=8ngGd2SUiO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|989752 | |(Review_Request_SDL2) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eVhPk2SI1j&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Depends On|848144 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IwPD7vnWaI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- 1. Please use %qmake_qt4 if possible. 2. Replace pkgconfig(QtGui) with qt4-devel 3. Summary should be "A simple DBF viewer and editor" (quoted from github homepage) 4. Change License to GPLv3+ 5. Remove INSTALL file in %doc. Package is good, once fixed and upload second version, I'll approve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pONYOOSkyw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956255] Review Request: glite-info-update-endpoints - Script to collect LDAP endpoins to populate the BDII
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956255
Veaceslav Mindru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mind...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Hello Maria.
Is this targeted for EPEL5 releases or EPEL6 releases ? In case EPEL6 please
mind this.
Drop this line.
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
BuildRoot: This is where files will be "installed" during the %install process
(after the %build process). This is now redundant in Fedora and is only needed
for EPEL5. By default, the build root is placed in "%{_topdir}/BUILDROOT/".
drop rm -rf in %install section
>%install
>rm -rf %{buildroot}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section
drop %clean section
>%clean
>rm -rf %{buildroot}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=h45IPAsPm3&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #1)
> I'll take this.
>
> #
>
> Have CC'ed Petr Pisar (ppisar), because he's the maintainer of "old"
> SDL-branch. Some colab might be helpful on this, I think.
>
> SDL2 is in RC state itm. Do you ITP SDL_{image,mixer}2 as well?
http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/download-2.0.php
SDL version 2.0.0 (stable)
>
> #
>
> He goes the first review-run. Issues found. :(
>
> #
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
> Note: No javadoc subpackage present
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
>
> ---> What??? Can't find anything java-related in the pkg...
>Must be a bug in f-r, then. I'll ignore this for now.
>
> - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
> the spec URL.
> Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
> /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/diff.txt
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
>
> ---> rebuild srpm, plz.
Really. He updates release tar.gz w/o changes in version. WTF?
>
> - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-devel,
> SDL2-static
> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
>
> ---> false-positive (possible bug), are present in arched-form
>
> - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
>
> ---> nothing java-releated here, see above
>
> - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
> subpackage
> Note: No javadoc subpackage present
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
>
> ---> nothing java-releated here, see above
>
> - all files in %doc have wrong end-of-line encoding
> See:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-
> encoding
>
> ---> use sed -i -e's!\r!!g' $file on them, please
fixed
>
>
> = 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.
> [x]: Static libraries in -static 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.
> [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> SDL2-static
>
> ---> is solved by requires devel-subpkg
>
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>
> ---> issues present
>
> [!]: 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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
> generated", "zlib/libpng". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed
> output of licensecheck in
> /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt
>
> ---> License tag should be zlib and BSD and GPLv2+ and MIT
fixed
>
> [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.
> [?]: 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.
>
> ---> This will be co-existing with "old" SDL?
yes. we should to support SDL and SDL2 simultaneously
>
> [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
[Bug 956250] Review Request: glite-info-static - Script to create GLUE LDIF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956250
Veaceslav Mindru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mind...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Hello Maria ,
same question here, this is targeted for EPEL5 or EPEL6? In case EPEL6 mind
dropping deprecated lines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
>rm -rf %{buildroot}
>%clean
>rm -rf %{buildroot}
VM
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hcagZrV35c&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956250] Review Request: glite-info-static - Script to create GLUE LDIF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956250
--- Comment #5 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Please review also following E/W from rmplint
glite-info-static.spec:5: W: non-standard-group System/Monitoring
glite-info-static.spec:9: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
glite-info-static.spec:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eim2sQpZN1&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956255] Review Request: glite-info-update-endpoints - Script to collect LDAP endpoins to populate the BDII
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956255
--- Comment #3 from Veaceslav Mindru ---
Hello,
please review also E/W from rpmlint.
glite-info-static.spec:5: W: non-standard-group System/Monitoring
glite-info-static.spec:9: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
glite-info-static.spec:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
glite-info-static.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
VM
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DIdcKEJHes&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #2 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > 1. Please use %qmake_qt4 if possible. Not works for me (F19): + %qmake_qt4 PREFIX=/usr /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aFeduB: line 29: fg: no job control error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aFeduB (%build) 2..5 fixed. New spec: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf.spec Old spec: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf-0.9.9-1.spec srpm: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qtdbf/qtdbf-0.9.9-2.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=fCeDgYFsrG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng ---
Oh sorry, I forgot to quote that this macro is in updates-testing but not
stable, so it's useless now..
However this macro is:
/usr/lib/qt4/bin/qmake \
QMAKE_CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables}" \
QMAKE_CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables}" \
QMAKE_LFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro }"
Make sure the optflags and ldflags.
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=ntjwVlaawL&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar --- (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. I propose not to package SDL2 at all. Less packages we have less bugs the distribution contains. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CiVt3zLNiB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #4 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- I'll wait for this macro in stable and will rebuild all of my qmake-based packages alltogether. Ok? Thenk you for fastest review in the world. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=V7DrWhP3YK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qtdbf Short Description: A simple DBF viewer and editor Owners: tieugene 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=MEKdVa2JZh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org Alias||qtdbf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fUeFwaEicy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #4) > I'll wait for this macro in stable and will rebuild all of my qmake-based > packages alltogether. Ok? Ok. > Thenk you for fastest review in the world. Never mind, this software is tiny and bugless. Besides, I forgot to say one thing: I found help folder in datadir, not sure if it should be placed there? I think we should use %doc help/*. Waiting for your idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UznR8gUIvo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #7 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > Besides, I forgot to say one thing: > I found help folder in datadir, not sure if it should be placed there? > > I think we should use %doc help/*. > > Waiting for your idea. No, this is built-in help (F1) and must be in fixed path (hardcoded in sources) a kind of static data. In all linuxes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7CGuN04wSF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng --- Got 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=KEezWMLCKw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt --- What does the program do if they are missing? When marking them %doc they may get excluded in a --excludedocs installation. That's a corner-case, but the program must not crash when the help files are missing, for example. The files are HTML plus images, so theoretically they could be marked %doc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BAwZbt4DCx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #9 from Björn Esser --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #8) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. > > I propose not to package SDL2 at all. Less packages we have less bugs the > distribution contains. This is some kind of ironic, isn't 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=Sr2ukRxn7X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #10 from Igor Gnatenko --- Update! Changelog included. spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec srpm: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc2.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=CJEuT651mJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985190] Review Request: python-django-memcached-pool - A Memcached Pool for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985190 --- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria --- I don't revised the package in depth, however I'll to do a commentary for the reviewer. don't base your reviews only in a tool such as fedora-review , you have to be more consistent with your commentaries. For the first point: License licensecheck look into file to search a pattern that matches with a known license, if it not encounter , then, you have to look manually and check. So the last commentary don't make sense. Please check it if exist some different license, in addition of the listed on the license field. For the main url: the field URL not necessarily have that coincide with the Source URL. Greeting to both -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iNi6Om93pk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #10 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #9) > What does the program do if they are missing? When marking them %doc they > may get excluded in a --excludedocs installation. That's a corner-case, but > the program must not crash when the help files are missing, for example. The > files are HTML plus images, so theoretically they could be marked %doc. 1. They can't be missing - they are part of package. As RH-based place docs int /usr/share/doc/-/ - some other distros (deb-based?) can place docs into /us/share/doc// 2. According to your proposition icons must be place into /usr/share/icons/*/ ? So - as icons as help texts (help - not doc) as translations are simple static data. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vHJVwX81C7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- Whoops: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rF5kutvl2B&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989800] Review Request: mate-icon-theme-faenza - Complementary icon theme for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989800
--- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Ulbrich ---
Two suggestions.
1. You don't need BR icon-naming-utils.
2. This is a very big package, you can use hardlink to link identical images to
reduce the package size.
Add
BuildRequires: hardlink
and before rpm scriplets.
# save space by linking identical images
hardlink -c -v $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icons
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WPQ5L4IRxD&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989800] Review Request: mate-icon-theme-faenza - Complementary icon theme for MATE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989800
--- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich ---
sorry , i meant
# save space by linking identical images
hardlink -c -v %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zuPCBMPkLq&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #12 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- From other side: %doc are optional. Helps are mandatory (in this case). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RdDCFrwf68&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt --- We're talking past eachother: > 1. They can't be missing - they are part of package. They _could_ be excluded, _if_ they were marked %doc. Currently, they aren't marked %doc. That's why I commented on the implications of marking them %doc when they are [strictly] required at run-time by a Help menu. > 2. According to your proposition icons must be place into /usr/share/icons/*/ > ? That's nothing I've proposed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pKa424LbLg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #14 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #13) > We're talking past eachother: > > > 1. They can't be missing - they are part of package. > > They _could_ be excluded, _if_ they were marked %doc. Currently, they aren't > marked %doc. That's why I commented on the implications of marking them %doc > when they are [strictly] required at run-time by a Help menu. Ok, in reality they are not _strictly_ required. Now qtdbf can work without them (showing "Help file missing\nNo such file or directory."). But now it's to hard (for devels) to use distro-specific doc path. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eUx56676dL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957053] Review Request: groonga-normalizer-mysql - MySQL compatible normalizer plugin for groonga
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957053
--- Comment #7 from HAYASHI Kentaro ---
Thanks Michael!
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #6)
> > ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64
>
> Since ExlusiveArch and ExcludeArch are related:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures
>
I guess that 'You shold check koji build listed in ExclusiveArch:', don't you?
If so, here is the result of koji build. It seems OK for me...
$ koji build --scratch rawhide
SRPMS/groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm
Uploading srpm: SRPMS/groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm
[] 100% 00:00:02 380.65 KiB 142.80 KiB/sec
Created task: 5677043
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5677043
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
5677043 build (rawhide, groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm): open
(arm02-builder22.arm.fedoraproject.org)
5677045 buildArch (groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm, i686): open
(buildvm-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
5677044 buildArch (groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm, x86_64):
open (buildvm-22.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
5677044 buildArch (groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm, x86_64):
open (buildvm-22.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
0 free 2 open 1 done 0 failed
5677045 buildArch (groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm, i686): open
(buildvm-09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
0 free 1 open 2 done 0 failed
5677043 build (rawhide, groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm): open
(arm02-builder22.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
0 free 0 open 3 done 0 failed
5677043 build (rawhide, groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.fc19.src.rpm)
completed successfully
>
> > %package devel
> > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
>
>
I've fixed!
> > %dir %{_libdir}/groonga
> > %dir %{_libdir}/groonga/plugins
>
> These dirs are owned by groonga-libs already, and this package requires
> groonga-libs. It doesn't need to include these dirs, too.
>
>
> > %dir %{_libdir}/groonga/plugins/normalizers
>
> Will there be other normalizers? Then this dir could/should be moved into
> the groonga-libs package.
As you pointed out, groonga package should own above directories.
So I've just removed it.
Spec URL:
http://kenhys.fedorapeople.org/groonga-normalizer-mysql/groonga-normalizer-mysql.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kenhys.fedorapeople.org/groonga-normalizer-mysql/groonga-normalizer-mysql-1.0.5-3.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=061elz5dzy&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961375] Review Request: rubygem-thread_safe - Thread-safe collections and utilities for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961375 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Josef Stribny --- Thank you for the review, I will delete the shebang before pushing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-thread_safe Short Description: Thread-safe collections and utilities for Ruby Owners: jstribny Branches: 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=KjwJUY0OVQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt ---
They don't need to.
%doc %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/
would be enough. Remember, %doc does two different things depending on whether
it is applied to absolute paths or local paths.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=g8BPV6nSV2&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 #38 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/gimp-dds-plugin/master/gimp-dds-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/gimp-dds-plugin/2.2.1/3.fc20.R/src/gimp-dds-plugin-2.2.1-3.fc20.R.src.rpm Updated for build with right CFLAGS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sJV0m80uMn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989297] Review Request: fdm - A simple lightweight tool of fetching, filtering and delivering emails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989297 --- Comment #5 from HAYASHI Kentaro --- Hi, rpmlint says: fdm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimise -> minimize, miniseries minimise -> minimize ^ It seems fdm does not contain separate license text files, but Licencse: in spec describes GPLv3, on the otherhand, web site indicates (http://sourceforge.net/projects/fdm/) BSD. what should I confirm? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4Qzb7Moxt3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989433] Review Request: rubygem-mysql2 - A simple, fast Mysql library for Ruby, binding to libmysql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989433 --- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý --- Did not noticed that. 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=jK5BpsMRDe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 987433] Review Request: libcomps - alternative for yum.comps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987433 Jindrich Luza changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jl...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #8 from Jindrich Luza --- #3, #4, #5, #7 fixed new SPEC and SRPM: SPEC https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LZtQy9lCKnMjFDTTB4X0c5Qlk/edit?usp=sharing SRPM https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LZtQy9lCKneVZwMVM4ejl6Wlk/edit?usp=sharing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Hod1i8A6hZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961419] Review Request: anet - Ada Networking Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961419 Björn Persson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Björn Persson --- Thanks for the review. I'll let F20 be the first release for Anet. At my current rate it will be a while before anything that will use it gets packaged. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: anet Short Description: Ada Networking Library Owners: rombobeorn Branches: 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=KrOj9C4wvZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960
--- Comment #16 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #15)
> They don't need to.
>
>%doc %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/
>
> would be enough. Remember, %doc does two different things depending on
> whether it is applied to absolute paths or local paths.
And what is the aim?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O7VNeFbIjA&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972860] Review Request: abakus - The simple KDE calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972860
--- Comment #1 from Dridi Boukelmoune ---
Hi,
During my review I've found issues that look like blockers.
> MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
> produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
$ rpmlint SRPMS/abakus-0.92-1.fc20.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/abakus-0.92-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
abakus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bc -> BC, bx, b
abakus.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bc -> BC, bx, b
abakus.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/abakus-0.92/COPYING
abakus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abakus
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
The missing man page should not be an issue for a GUI app. For the FSF address,
it's in all source file headers, but only the COPYING file should be an issue.
For the makeself package, I've solved this by adding the license as a second
upstream source to override the outdated file. Abakus not being maintained,
it's probably useless to ask the upstream to fix this.
Makeself review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015
Spec sample:
Source1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
I suppose this is not ok until the licensing issue is solved.
> MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
> MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK
> MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license. [3]
Not OK, more like GPLv2+ according to source files headers.
> MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
> in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
> the package must be included in %doc.[4]
OK
> MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK
> MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK
> MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
> as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as
> it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can
> be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how
> to deal with this.
OK
> MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
> least one primary architecture. [7]
OK (x86_64)
There are warnings though.
> MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
> architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
> ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
> bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
> on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
> corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
I cannot test other architectures (maybe i686).
> MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
> that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
> inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK
> MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
> %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
n/a
> MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
> files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
> call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
n/a
> MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
OK
> MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
> this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
> relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
> considered a blocker. [12]
n/a
> MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
> create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
> create that directory. [13]
OK
> MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
> %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
OK
> MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
> with executable permissions, for example. [15]
OK
> MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK
> MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK
> MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
> of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted
> to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
n/a
> MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
> of
[Bug 738465] Review Request: rubygem-barista - Simple, integrated support for CoffeeScript in Rack and Rails applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738465 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(fot...@redhat.com |fedora-review? |) | --- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch --- * Upstream source differs from the one in SRPM - It seems that the source .gem you have in your SRPM does not match the upstream on. Could you please fix this issue? * LICENSE file must be included in the main package. - This does not seems to be resolved. - See [1] for more information [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZMDq9onHTy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #17 from Michael Schwendt --- That those files are properly marked as documentation, so you can query the RPM packages (or database) to list them. And then it's up to the user whether to view them in the program or with an external HTML reader. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nWbDdiLnpo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961375] Review Request: rubygem-thread_safe - Thread-safe collections and utilities for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961375 --- 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=3vcDiJcwYu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961375] Review Request: rubygem-thread_safe - Thread-safe collections and utilities for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961375 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=rfHHwotnYP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961419] Review Request: anet - Ada Networking Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961419 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=0KRpPd1Or3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961419] Review Request: anet - Ada Networking Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961419 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HNBWVzYEbB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #18 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- It is the reason. Ok - I will update spec before bodhi. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=s6VKB6wELN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976714] Review Request: python-scikit-learn - Machine learning in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976714 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=eK2kIfFYxG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976714] Review Request: python-scikit-learn - Machine learning in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976714 --- Comment #14 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=CcGL2IhvZA&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987153 --- Comment #10 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=6X7fAOBzS7&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987153 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=bKNFHVIWwr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989265] Review Request: dtdparser - A Java DTD Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989265 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=4CU8QGvjgf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989265] Review Request: dtdparser - A Java DTD Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989265 --- Comment #11 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=Qktmu66J9H&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 --- Comment #19 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=ioLyLwYRXr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989960] Review Request: qtdbf - DBF viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989960 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=cQ6AW344Xg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
--- Comment #11 from Björn Esser ---
Still two minor issues. You can fix on SCM-import :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package must own all directories that it creates.
See in report below.
- Proper License-breakdown. See in report below.
= 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.
---> yum provides */$srcfile doesn't report any file to be provided
from another package. Nothing bundled, I think.
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> two small issues: License and owned-dirs
need fix on SCM-import
[!]: 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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "zlib/libpng". 125 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt
---> My bad... You should drop BSD and GPLv2+
First is from testsuite and latter from included libtool
But you need to keep MIT; it's from sources
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
---> devel doesn't own '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
change '%{_datadir}/aclocal/*' to '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
and all is fine. It's common on 28 other devel-pkgs to
own this dir, See: `yum provides */aclocal/`
[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 20480 bytes in 7 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 is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint
[Bug 987433] Review Request: libcomps - alternative for yum.comps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987433 --- Comment #10 from Ales Kozumplik --- (In reply to Ales Kozumplik from comment #9) > this is much better, the only remaining thing I see is the conditional > compilation for python2/python3. why not just drop the globals determining > this and always build both packages in Fedora? hmm, formulated as a question, though what I mean is: drop the globals and simplify the spec and then we're good to go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=81PrcU5g8k&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 987433] Review Request: libcomps - alternative for yum.comps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987433 --- Comment #9 from Ales Kozumplik --- this is much better, the only remaining thing I see is the conditional compilation for python2/python3. why not just drop the globals determining this and always build both packages in Fedora? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Y4NixbFuT4&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 #8 from Miroslav Suchý --- I agree with #5 that running test in this case is little bit problematic. Please note that there is new version available 0.3.13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vlrytxyMzK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
--- Comment #12 from Björn Esser ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #11)
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>
> ---> devel doesn't own '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
> change '%{_datadir}/aclocal/*' to '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
> and all is fine. It's common on 28 other devel-pkgs to
> own this dir, See: `yum provides */aclocal/`
Sorry my bad ;) Pkg must not own this dir! It's owned by filesystem already
and avail on every system.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PtnHs5yfLs&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665733] Review Request: Coin3 - High-level 3D visualization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665733 --- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to John Morris from comment #18) > Hi Ralf, if you're not interested in having this package reviewed, I am interested in having this package reviewed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Xq9CNA17QL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 665733] Review Request: Coin3 - High-level 3D visualization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665733 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PETI0tScqY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Igor Gnatenko --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: SDL2 Short Description: A cross-platform multimedia library Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: 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=IMER5dTuTA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #14 from Igor Gnatenko --- spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec srpm: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.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=Nqv2jUxP2N&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser 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=NK8qd3FenY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|989946 | |(f-r_detects_java-issues_in | |_c_pkg) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oAkqQYYEQG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 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=W0ZNjEM2fR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #15 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=cSs6wQcSq2&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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984846
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann ---
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 jipijapa-
javadoc
[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:
"Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/goldmann/work/review/984846-jipijapa/licensecheck.txt
License tag should be "ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+"
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD
