[Bug 989015] Review Request: makeself - Make self-extractable archives on Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Oh... You forgot to bump the release number, each time you've fixed some problems you should bump it from n to n+1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nTAzG7zRGsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915920] Review Request: qt5-qtsvg - Qt5 - QtSvg component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915920 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- OK. Then could you please provide the latest version of SPEC/SPRM? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DMp0a9RuGSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989015] Review Request: makeself - Make self-extractable archives on Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015 --- Comment #4 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- I thought it wouldn't matter for a package that hasn't been published yet. Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/makeself.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/makeself-2.2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm Updated! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eMGIO7fhmMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821406] Review Request: eiskaltdcpp - QT Direct Connect client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821406 --- Comment #11 from Veaceslav Mindru mind...@gmail.com --- Hello Vasiliy, i did not have time to build it so far.I will try today and will let you know. 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=7vAYmXQZ6Ia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991
--- Comment #2 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
Ok, some remarks.
First of all, I would like to see `%build` above `gem build
%{gem_name}.gemspec`. I know it doesn't mean much for gems, but I like the
consistency :)
Second, I couldn't get it to build locally on mock (rawhide) because of rack's
version. In particular:
Error: Package: 1:rubygem-actionpack-3.2.13-2.fc20.noarch (fedora)
Requires: rubygem(rack) 1.5
Available: 1:rubygem-rack-1.5.2-1.fc20.noarch (fedora)
rubygem(rack) = 1.5.2
It seems in the koji build you provided it installed rack-1.4.5-3 from f19 [0],
which is in accordance with actionpack's Requires.
I asked in #devel and I was told that building for rawhide **might** include
some F19 packages, if these packages were last built before F19 branched out of
Rawhide (i.e when Rawhide actually was F19).
As I see it, the only way to build for rawhide is to loosen the rack dependency
of actionpack [1].
Nevertheless, I tested it for f19 and it builds fine, rpmlint gives no errors
and it installs and loads fine in irb.
How do you want to proceed?
[0] http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9800/5639800/root.log
[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rubygem-actionpack.git/tree/rubygem-actionpack.spec#n38
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BIBLoZeXyLa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989015] Review Request: makeself - Make self-extractable archives on Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Your SRPM name doesn't match the spec name, m-akeself? makeself? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xd4IiMz6pTa=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 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses -- The license should read BSD in the spec file. The example program is not part of the main package. Thus I feel, the main package description should not mention it. The summary of util says libsndfile. I think the description doesn't really fit the util subpackage well either. Can you run the tests? The xls2csv binary causes my build to break with an rpath issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3QscP64Ou5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807821] Review request: ns-3 Network Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807821 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I may have a try, but can you provide your spec/SRPM? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8vtSYYRGGea=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 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses -- The license should read BSD in the spec file. Fixed. The example program is not part of the main package. Thus I feel, the main package description should not mention it. The summary of util says libsndfile. I think the description doesn't really fit the util subpackage well either. Fixed. Can you run the tests? No rules for test, can you ensure? The xls2csv binary causes my build to break with an rpath issue. I build the library without any problem, not sure about yours, any logs? NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/libxls.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libxls-1.3.4-2.fc20.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=kNg412FHWta=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 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses -- The license should read BSD in the spec file. Fixed. The example program is not part of the main package. Why are you shipping it? If it's just an example, it should not be shipped as *-util. If it's an utility, then packaging would make sense. Besides this, due to its small side I'd recommend to put the xls2csv into the main package instead of putting it into a *-util subpackage. Can you run the tests? No rules for test, can you ensure? The rules are there (make check), it's just that this package is broken. The xls2csv binary causes my build to break with an rpath issue. During builds, binaries being linked against just having been built shared-libs occasionally require an explicit LD_LIBRARY_PATH=path to *.so in builddir being set. e.g. something along the lines of make check LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/somewhere could be neccessary. Another common issue in such situations is config-files not being found, because they are not installed, yet. I haven't tried to check what may apply here. I build the library without any problem, not sure about yours, any logs? I guess you have your package already installed and are not building in a clean environment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yYhn5cRwT2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989015] Review Request: makeself - Make self-extractable archives on Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015 --- Comment #6 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- I don't understand, I have this: $ curl -L https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/makeself-2.2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm 2/dev/null | rpm -qpi - Name: makeself Version : 2.2.0 Release : 2.fc19 Architecture: noarch [...] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6azdz6itg1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990422] New: Review Request: rubygem-rails-api - Rails for API only Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990422 Bug ID: 990422 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rails-api - Rails for API only Applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: msu...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-rails-api/rubygem-rails-api.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-rails-api/rubygem-rails-api-0.1.0-5.fc19.src.rpm Description: Rails::API is a subset of a normal Rails application, created for applications that don't require all functionality that a complete Rails application provides Fedora Account System Username: msuchy Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5682695 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jtZfjKhgyOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990423] New: Review Request: libsodium - A fork of NaCl library with compatible APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423 Bug ID: 990423 Summary: Review Request: libsodium - A fork of NaCl library with compatible APIs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cicku...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libsodium-0.4.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: NaCl (pronounced salt) is a new easy-to-use high-speed software library for network communication, encryption, decryption, signatures, etc. NaCl's goal is to provide all of the core operations needed to build higher-level cryptographic tools. Sodium is a portable, cross-compilable, installable, packageable fork of NaCl, with a compatible API. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IkbsTQsntfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989015] Review Request: makeself - Make self-extractable archives on Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989015 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Well, the source downloaded from URL via browser will be renamed to m-akeselfxxx...Something wrong with bb itself. But if I use wget -N or curl, because bitbucket is blocked in China, I can't continue... Never mind I changed the SRPM name so it can match the name now. Package is good. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nhliaRnYwOa=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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WMTvWreYdza=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 #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-modernize-0.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-modernize-0.2-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rDpM03vlx0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976770] Review Request: sstp-client - Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976770 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(richmattes@gmail. ||com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fTRDqM3Fuqa=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 #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-modernize-0.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-modernize-0.2-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tWoQvZooNua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877810] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-trio - Extended implementation of printf and scanf for gLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877810 --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- The only issue I've found is the licence. More than a half of the project actually uses ISC. Correct the Licence tag to ASL 2.0 and ISC and I'll approve the review :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VSDA0Mvw6aa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||vasc...@gmail.com Whiteboard||NotReady Flags||needinfo?(vasc...@gmail.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FvStlJgq91a=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 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
%{_bindir}/xls2csv
$ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/xls2csv
catdoc-0:0.94.2-11.fc19.x86_64
$ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/\*xls2csv
catdoc-0:0.94.2-11.fc19.x86_64
xls2csv-0:1.06-14.fc19.noarch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OU3uERqfkXa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970956] Review Request: libclens - A convenience library to aid in porting code from OpenBSD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970956 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Hi Bjorn, what should I do now? Can I only package headers? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L96yS0Q4gca=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 #11 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- minimise is British English spelling, minimize would be American English: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#summary -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e3XcQIxmLua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962836] Review Request: beanvalidation-tck - Bean Validation (JSR 349) TCK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962836 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|871014 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8rBhRVgzUVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984605] Review Request: nwchem - Delivering High-Performance Computational Chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605 --- Comment #8 from marcindulak marcin.du...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #7) By the way, %ifarch i386 i586 i686 should read %ifarch %ix86 i have made that minor change without creating a new release. Also disabled one more nwchem test (h2o-response) that hangs (mpich) or core dumps (serial). I noticed that %ix86 is claimed to become obsolete one day, already at least since 2002 http://www.redhat.com/archives/rpm-list/2002-January/msg00044.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rt461vn7iYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970438] Review Request: mingw-phonon - Multimedia framework API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970438 Veaceslav Mindru mind...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mind...@gmail.com, ||ulat...@yahoo.com Flags||needinfo?(ulat...@yahoo.com ||) --- Comment #1 from Veaceslav Mindru mind...@gmail.com --- Hello Steve, could you create relationship between all your submitted packages. I see the same issues ( BuildRoot %install %clean ) in all spec files and find not needed to comment every submit related to MinGW. So we can have 1 main Submit with links to over , this hopefully will organize a bit. 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=PPQe8ApnYZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915920] Review Request: qt5-qtsvg - Qt5 - QtSvg component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915920 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- comment #1 is the latest I have. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WCXx27vGBma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915144] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #29 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru --- Ping? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aEbhmcxqIta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989266] Review Request: smooks - Smooks Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989266 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- you should use mvn(org.hibernate:hibernate-core:3) instead of mvn(org.hibernate:hibernate-core) this one is for hibernate 4.x 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=ypXMCrmFNXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989266] Review Request: smooks - Smooks Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989266
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in milyn, milyn-
commons, milyn-smooks-core, milyn-scribe, milyn-scribe-core, milyn-scribe-
adapter, milyn-scribe-jpa, milyn-scribe-hibernate, smooks-cartridge-base-
pom, milyn-edisax-parser
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
= 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.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in smooks-
javadoc , milyn , milyn-commons , milyn-smooks-core , milyn-scribe ,
milyn-scribe-core , milyn-scribe-adapter , milyn-scribe-jpa , milyn-
scribe-hibernate , smooks-cartridge-base-pom , milyn-edisax-parser
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: 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)), Unknown or generated. 156 files have
unknown license.
ASL 2.0:
smooks-cartridges/camel/src/test/java/org/milyn/smooks/camel/component/SmooksComponentTest.java
smooks-cartridges/camel/src/test/java/org/milyn/smooks/camel/dataformat/Customer.java
smooks-cartridges/camel/src/test/java/org/milyn/smooks/camel/dataformat/Gender.java
smooks-cartridges/camel/src/test/java/org/milyn/smooks/camel/dataformat/SmooksCSVDataFormatTest.java
smooks-cartridges/camel/src/test/java/org/milyn/smooks/camel/processor/SmooksProcessorTest.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/Broker.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/BrokerServices.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/Main.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/events/Event.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/events/EventFeeder.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/events/EventGenerator.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/events/EventImpl.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/events/EventReceiver.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/events/EventSource.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/events/StockTickPersister.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/misc/Utils.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/model/Action.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/model/Company.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/model/CompanyRegistry.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/model/PortfolioAction.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/model/StockTick.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/model/SuddenDropEvent.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/ui/BrokerWindow.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/ui/CompanyPanel.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/ui/LogPanel.java
smooks-examples/drools-fusion/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/broker/ui/ScrollingBanner.java
[Bug 979666] Review Request: perl-Text-Xslate - Scalable template engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979666 --- Comment #13 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- You haven't look at the code at all, have you? As usually, items marked as FIX are needed for the review; TODO are (strongly) recommended. TODO: BR perl (called in spec) TODO: Run-require perl(B) FIX: BR perl(base) FIX: BR perl(Carp) FIX: BR perl(CGI) TODO: BR perl(Config) FIX: BR perl(constant) FIX: BR perl(Cwd) FIX: BR perl(Data::Dumper) FIX: Run-require perl(Data::Dumper) FIX: BR perl(Devel::StackTrace) FIX: BR perl(Digest::MD5) FIX: Run-require perl(Digest::MD5) FIX: BR perl(Encode) FIX: Run-require perl(Encode) FIX: BR perl(Exporter) FIX: BR perl(ExtUtils::MM_Unix) FIX: BR perl(Fatal) TODO: BR perl(Fcntl) TODO: BR perl(File::Basename) TODO: BR perl(File::Copy) TODO: BR perl(File::Find) FIX: BR perl(File::Path) FIX: Run-require perl(File::Path) FIX: BR perl(File::Spec) TODO: BR perl(File::stat) TODO: BR perl(FindBin) FIX: BR perl(Getopt::Long) TODO: BR perl(if) FIX: BR perl(lib) FIX: BR perl(List::Util) FIX: BR perl(Mouse::Role) FIX: BR perl(Mouse::Util::TypeConstraints) TODO: BR perl(overload) FIX: BR perl(Plack::Builder) FIX: BR perl(Plack::Response) FIX: BR perl(Plack::Test) TODO: BR perl(SelectSaver) TODO: BR perl(strict) FIX: BR perl(threads) TODO: BR perl(Tie::Array) TODO: BR perl(Tie::Hash) TODO: BR perl(Time::localtime) TODO: BR perl(utf8) TODO: BR perl(vars) TODO: BR perl(warnings) FIX: BR perl(XSLoader) FIX: Run-equire perl(XSLoader) Some of those are used in optional tests (such as Plack::*) but given your current dependency list, it seems like you wanted to run those therefore I've included them too. TODO: Package the 'example' directory as documentation. There's a lot of useful stuff there. TIP: Since you define the %pkgname macro, you could also use it in URL (or possibly even Name). TODO: Remove the perl(autodie) BR. You need the Fatal module, so just BR that (mentioned boave). The rest of the package is okay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=V4us3P3E4ma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989266] Review Request: smooks - Smooks Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989266 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Issues: === [!]: 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)), Unknown or generated. 156 files have unknown license. - [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Should query upstream to have it included. and temporarily install http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Installation errors --- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.32 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.32 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.32 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/smooks-javadoc-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-commons-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-smooks-core-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-core-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-adapter-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-jpa-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-hibernate-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/smooks-cartridge-base-pom-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-edisax-parser-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/', 'install', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/smooks-javadoc-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-commons-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-smooks-core-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-core-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-adapter-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-jpa-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-scribe-hibernate-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/smooks-cartridge-base-pom-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/gil/989266-smooks/results/milyn-edisax-parser-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: milyn-commons-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch (/milyn-commons-1.5.1-2.fc20.noarch) Requires: mvn(hsqldb:hsqldb) You can try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NF8WV3qJala=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989266] Review Request: smooks - Smooks Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989266 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- forgot this one Diff spec file in url and in SRPM - --- /home/gil/989266-smooks/srpm/smooks.spec2013-07-31 11:09:54.470554051 +0200 +++ /home/gil/989266-smooks/srpm-unpacked/smooks.spec2013-07-31 11:09:55.271512522 +0200 @@ -253,5 +253,4 @@ * Tue Jul 30 2013 Gerard Ryan gali...@fedoraproject.org - 1.5.1-2 - RHBZ-989266: Fix hsqldb version; add BR's -- Remove milyn-smooks-camel subpackage * Sat Jul 27 2013 Gerard Ryan gali...@fedoraproject.org - 1.5.1-1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ufqKpBEmQpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875668] Review Request: ops4j-master - OPS4J - Master POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875668 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 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=uhZHlSiTMqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915920] Review Request: qt5-qtsvg - Qt5 - QtSvg component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915920 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- The latest version is 5.1.0, can you update it? Or just wait until main package is 5.1.0? 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=kRWYatjyaSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989266] Review Request: smooks - Smooks Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989266 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- there is also a bundled library commons/src/main/java/org/milyn/annotation commons/src/main/java/org/milyn/annotation/fusionsoft-license.txt is a modified version of the original Fusionsoft Annotation http://www.fusionsoft-online.com/articles-java-annotations.php -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Hh7Wou86Iwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985247] Review Request: jackson-jaxrs-providers - Jackson JAX-RS providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985247 Bug 985247 depends on bug 985231, which changed state. Bug 985231 Summary: Review Request: jackson-dataformat-smile - Support for reading and writing Smile encoded data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985231 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tCzeiAOvVNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985231] Review Request: jackson-dataformat-smile - Support for reading and writing Smile encoded data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985231 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||mgold...@redhat.com Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Fixed In Version||jackson-dataformat-smile-2. ||2.2-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-07-31 05:51:27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xTRDa3rzvUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985232] Review Request: jackson-dataformat-xml - XML data binding extension for Jackson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985232 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgold...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Can we proceed with the review? It's a required package for upgrading WildFly and is currently blocking the progress. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=con2wKB5nMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC|bugs.mich...@gmx.net| Flags|needinfo?(bugs.michael@gmx. | |net)| --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Hmm, I don't even maintain a Perl based package anymore. ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XFlKRf4M1Wa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(vasc...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/libmediainfo/master/libmediainfo.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/libmediainfo/0.7.64/3.fc20.R/src/libmediainfo-0.7.64-3.fc20.R.src.rpm Update to 0.7.64. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QhosJH9Lu0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Hi, it's actually my fault, because I broken up rawhide by updating rack too soon (so now old Rails 3.0 is unfortunately broken and it's not yet replaced by 4.0), I tested this package before it happened which you can see above in the old koji link. I will have to build it without running the tests and enable them after I finish Rails 4. As for the %build, I changed it. Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-sprockets-rails.spec SRPM URL: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3173/5683173/rubygem-sprockets-rails-2.0.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5683171 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=9E7v3pAr1sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990512] New: Review Request: rubygem-dalli - High performance memcached client for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990512 Bug ID: 990512 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-dalli - High performance memcached client for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jstri...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-dalli.spec SRPM URL: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3172/5683172/rubygem-dalli-2.6.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: High performance memcached client for Ruby Fedora Account System Username: jstribny Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5683170 Tests ran only locally as they cannot be run at the moment in koji. I will enable them after Rails 4.0 lands in rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=23uTt7Dzcga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961642] Review Request: ubuntu-font-family - The fonts used in Ubuntu Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com --- (In reply to K.Prasad from comment #5) Thanks for the review. So I guess this package cannot be included in Fedora repo. Or you could contact Ubuntu and ask them to fix the license. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gl4LVu1peOa=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 #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MeIDzdpJp4a=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 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Y9y0MVRD9fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927374] Review Request: rubygem-rugged - Ruby binding to the libgit2 linkable library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927374 --- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Troy, it seems that you have forgot to update the .spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PLLemEG15Ua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927374] Review Request: rubygem-rugged - Ruby binding to the libgit2 linkable library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927374 --- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Eh, not just the .spec file, you have not uploaded the SRPM as well, it seems. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iEjnBYg0ofa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990544] New: Review Request: mangler - VOIP client capable of connecting to Ventrilo 3.x servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990544 Bug ID: 990544 Summary: Review Request: mangler - VOIP client capable of connecting to Ventrilo 3.x servers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ravn...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://zom.dk/mangler/mangler.spec SRPM URL: http://zom.dk/mangler/mangler-1.2.5-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Mangler is a VOIP client capable of connecting to Ventrilo 3.x servers. It is capable of performing almost all standard user functionality found in the official Ventrilo client. rpmlint: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5683566 Fedora Account System Username: paller -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JJvuYt7CSra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961364] Review Request: rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders - This gem contains deprecated finder APIs extracted from Active Record
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961364 --- Comment #1 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- I added a bootstrap condition for tests as we need to build this RubyGem before Rails 4.0 because ActiveRecord depends on this (I guess this will be dropped in 4.1). SPEC: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders.spec SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3599/5683599/rubygem-activerecord-deprecated_finders-1.0.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5683597 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6I8X34uDfAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990569] New: Review Request: rubygem-rails-observers - ActiveModel::Observer, ActiveRecord::Observer and ActionController::Caching::Sweeper extracted from Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990569 Bug ID: 990569 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rails-observers - ActiveModel::Observer, ActiveRecord::Observer and ActionController::Caching::Sweeper extracted from Rails Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jstri...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-rails-observers.spec SRPM URL: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3670/5683670/rubygem-rails-observers-0.1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Rails observer (removed from core in Rails 4.0) Fedora Account System Username: jstribny MOCK: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5683670 Bootstrapped as it's Rails 4.0 dependency. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3BAE5L4XOwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- IMO this package could replace firehol in Fedora; the last release of Firehol was 5 years ago and it needs systemd support and so on. If this package gains EPEL support, I'll be happy to review it and mark firehol dead. ** The Conflicts: firehol is incorrect - the packages can peacefully coexist on a system. ** What's the source for SOURCE1? Has the file been sent upstream? ** The list in the %description should IMHO be written in the form Sanewall can be used for almost any firewall need, including: * control of any number of internal/external/virtual interfaces * control of any combination of routed traffic * setting up DMZ routers and servers * all kinds of NAT * providing strong protection (flooding, spoofing, etc.) * transparent caches * source MAC verification * blacklists, whitelists -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iPKbstykXWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927374] Review Request: rubygem-rugged - Ruby binding to the libgit2 linkable library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927374 --- Comment #12 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- Sorry about that. I uploaded to the wrong directory. Both the spec and src.rpm are there now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0lzzbs8hEma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Thanks Susi, you can reset the assignee to you, I've contacted Douglas. I think he is willing to someone can help do a review. It's too late today, I'll update the package to the latest version and check the issues you've mentioned tomorrow. Just a thought before sleep, you mean I can add obsolete tag to replace the original firehol? If so I think it's great. (like mariadb and mysql?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RP1pdtg0gma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 --- Comment #5 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) Just a thought before sleep, you mean I can add obsolete tag to replace the original firehol? If so I think it's great. (like mariadb and mysql?) Yes. But you'll also need to add a Provides, because sanewall really is a replacement for FireHOL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BdOclzTxmra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 --- Comment #30 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Created attachment 781180 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781180action=edit Italian localization files This files add Italian support for davmail please, copy these file in src/java thanks 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=MNjjqTEvona=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 --- Comment #31 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Created attachment 781181 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781181action=edit Italian localization files 2 Italian localization files 2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ABzEvP6bqka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 728302] Review Request: pjproject - Libraries written in C language for building embedded/non-embedded VoIP applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728302
Karel Volný kvo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(lemen...@gmail.co
||m)
--- Comment #57 from Karel Volný kvo...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Mario Santagiuliana from comment #55)
I update the package:
Spec URL: http://marionline.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/pjproject.spec
SRPM URL:
http://marionline.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pjproject-2.0.1-1.fc18.src.
rpm
We should resolve:
- compile using libresample already included in Fedora repo (I don't
understand if new version check if it is already installed);
I got some inspiration here:
http://svn.pjsip.org/repos/pjproject/trunk/third_party/build/samplerate/README.txt
and I'm able to build the package with the following changes in the specfile:
--- pjproject.spec~ 2013-02-16 15:16:03.0 +0100
+++ pjproject.spec 2013-07-31 15:22:29.408377163 +0200
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
BuildRequires: gsm-devel
BuildRequires: portaudio-devel
BuildRequires: libsrtp-devel
+BuildRequires: libsamplerate-devel
%description
This package provides the Open Source, comprehensive, high
@@ -48,11 +49,24 @@
%setup -q
%patch0 -p1
%patch1 -p1
-
+# make sure we don't bundle this code
+rm -rf third_party/resample
+# remove hardcoded references in ldflags
+sed -i -e /ac_resample_dll/,+8 d build.mak.in
+# this one seems unused: sed -i -e s/-lresample-\$(TARGET_NAME)//
build/os-linux.mak
+# fix include path to use the system library
+sed -i -e s#../../third_party/libsamplerate/src/samplerate.h#samplerate.h#
pjmedia/src/pjmedia/resample_libsamplerate.c
%build
env CFLAGS=%{optflags} CXXFLAGS=%{optflags} \
-%configure --with-external-speex --with-external-gsm --with-external-pa
--libdir=%{_libdir} --disable-ffmpeg
+%configure --with-external-speex --with-external-gsm --with-external-pa
--libdir=%{_libdir} --disable-ffmpeg --enable-libsamplerate
+# don't know where this comes from so modify Makefile directly
+# to prevent the attempt to build the removed code
+sed -i -e s/resample// third_party/build/Makefile
+# the default value is PJMEDIA_RESAMPLE_LIBRESAMPLE
+# and it is not redefined by configure after enabling libsamplerate
+# so change that to PJMEDIA_RESAMPLE_LIBSAMPLERATE manually
+echo #define PJMEDIA_RESAMPLE_IMP PJMEDIA_RESAMPLE_LIBSAMPLERATE
pjlib/include/pj/config_site.h
make dep
make clean
make # cannot use %{?_smp_mflags}, the package will not build if used
... of course this is just a proof of concept, sed should be replaced with
proper patches and we should patch configure rather than to modify
third_party/build/Makefile after it gets configured, and try to get the changes
upstream, but I guess this is a good start
- use Fedora iLBC library... I don't understand how to do this.
I'd call Peter for help here (NEEDINFO)
- resolve rpmlint error (but we need a fix on upstream).
you mean the FSF address issue? - this is not a blocker, but ... have you
contacted upstream already?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ENOiwWKPb7a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915920] Review Request: qt5-qtsvg - Qt5 - QtSvg component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915920 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- we will update in due course, sure, but for now, rawhide currently includes only 5.0.2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JtktMonvkLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] New: Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624 Bug ID: 990624 Summary: Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/json-parser.spec SRPM URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/json-parser-1.0.0-1.9fcf518.fc19.src.rpm Description: Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5684192 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rSR0hGd6dUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970438] Review Request: mingw-phonon - Multimedia framework API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970438 --- Comment #2 from Steve ulat...@yahoo.com --- I'm not sure what you mean by creating a relationship between all my submitted packages. I'm in the middle of moving to a new city; I won't have time to deal with this until next week at the earliest. Thank you for reviewing my packages, and I apologize for the delay. FYI, the BuildRoot %install %clean issues were present in the existing non-MinGW Fedora packages; I didn't add those sections. But I'll take them out of the MinGW packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AcyQArNXKla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990627] Review Request: jblas - Java bindings for BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990627 --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Package is rpmlint clean, except for two warning which I think are OK: - javadocs is marked as misspelt, but other javadoc packages use this spelling - configure-without-libdir-spec, but this is not a real configure script, but a custom thing and the proper paths *are* given to it, with differently named parameters. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=99tuFHwDg2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990627] Review Request: jblas - Java bindings for BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990627 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sXGbE04Z8ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990627] New: Review Request: jblas - Java bindings for BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990627 Bug ID: 990627 Summary: Review Request: jblas - Java bindings for BLAS Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zbys...@in.waw.pl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/jblas.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/jblas-1.2.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Wraps BLAS (e.g. ATLAS) using generated code through JNI. Allows Java programs to use the full power of ATLAS/Lapack through a convenient interface. Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek This is my first package, and I need a SPONSOR. I am active as systemd upstream and have been handling a bunch of systemd bugs in Fedora, but this is my first attempt at making a package. We use jblas in cell signalling pathways simulation software (https://github.com/neurord/stochdiff). It is a relatively small piece of code that gives a lot power to numerical calculations in Java. Please review! koji-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5684096 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oYFCmMgjcDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- quickies: * lacks a comment explaining how the tarball has been generated (either provide a script or a command-line) * python wrapper not included * tests (depending on the aforementioned python wrapper) missing too * you should request upstream maintainer to add a license file in his repository (and release tarballs when they'll be available) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HcTtT9qBLva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976468] Review Request: rubygem-teamocil - Easy session, window and pane layouts for tmux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976468 Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-07-31 11:23:34 --- Comment #9 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com --- I'm closing this, I've switched to tmuxinator https://github.com/aziz/tmuxinator and will open a review request for this soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ILJmW0bfVia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I recommend you to move %post{un} scripts below install section and above
file's section.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=V5HFsEJx12a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #781181|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #32 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Created attachment 781198 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781198action=edit Italian localization files 2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kRPB4GR2Uba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #781198|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #33 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Created attachment 781212 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781212action=edit Italian localization files 2 sorry upload the old one -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vBr8HXyaKoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
I recommend you to move %post{un} scripts below install section and above
file's section.
fxd
(In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #1)
quickies:
* lacks a comment explaining how the tarball has been generated (either
provide a script or a command-line)
Simple download
* python wrapper not included
In future will deleted
* tests (depending on the aforementioned python wrapper) missing too
In future will fixed
* you should request upstream maintainer to add a license file in his
repository (and release tarballs when they'll be available)
fxd
new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/json-parser.spec
new srpm:
http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/json-parser-1.0.0-1.df38ae7.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=LNL5hm3hx5a=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 #6 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) (In reply to Dan Mashal from comment #4) (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) Where is the changelog? Changelog for what? For what? You dont know for what? You don't know how to write %changelog? Are you kidding me? Please step aside. Instead of being rude you could have been more specific. I want Wolfgang to do this review you could have been more specific. Wolfgang is mycomaintainer for MATE and is experienced in doing package reviews. Wolfgang please take this 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=cCQWEYxJaYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990627] Review Request: jblas - Java bindings for BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990627
Veaceslav Mindru mind...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mind...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Veaceslav Mindru mind...@gmail.com ---
Hello,
comments on SPEC
as far as i can judge this is EPEL6 compliant, and looks semantic clean enough
though i have some doubts if macros is allowed to be used along with static
links here
cp -r javadoc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}
I will leave this with others to judge.
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=vMgtMV35aha=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989853] Review Request: opencfu - An application to count bacterial colonies and other circular objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989853 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- ./configure: line 2153: ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS: command not found ... /builddir/build/BUILD/opencfu-3.8.8/build-aux/missing: Unknown `--is-lightweight' option Try `/builddir/build/BUILD/opencfu-3.8.8/build-aux/missing --help' for more information configure: WARNING: 'missing' script is too old or missing Have you already analyzed these warnings ? - These errors libdc1394 error: Failed to initialize libdc1394 can be avoided by adding 'libdc1394-devel' as BR package Description : Libdc1394 is a library that is intended to provide a high level programming : interface for application developers who wish to control IEEE 1394 based : cameras that conform to the 1394-based Digital Camera Specification. - .desktop file is not validated. Please add a line for this work. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage - Source archive contains also code released with GPLv3+ license: GPL (v3 or later) - /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/opencfu-3.8.8/src/classifier/main.cpp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/opencfu-3.8.8/src/main.cpp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W4UoaFKSLga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|dougsl...@redhat.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5AtI80Mwmca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990627] Review Request: jblas - Java bindings for BLAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990627
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Veaceslav Mindru from comment #2)
Thank you for the quick review.
i have some doubts if macros is allowed to be used along with
static links here
Hm, there are no links, I think.
I took this part verbatim from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Specfile_Template, so it's
probably fine.
cp -r javadoc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}
I will leave this with others to judge.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vZJYlsTcPLa=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 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- configure: catdoc users: avoid xls2csv conflicts, use ./configure --program-prefix=lib to get libxls2csv -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jkkBn3OR8da=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 #7 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- @ Christopher, i can take the review if it is no problem for you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9seRtflrVCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- * current spec seems OK (i also reviewed the code, seems OK too) * i found out that the shared library generated was an empty stub, i submitted a Pull Request that fixes it https://github.com/udp/json-parser/pull/31 * i'll continue testing the library itself -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ds4nAQGjIea=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 #8 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- I've updated the spec and srpm. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-icon-theme-faenza.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-icon-theme-faenza-1.6.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Provides a complimentary set of icon themes for MATE Desktop -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gfuLAa9mWla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990512] Review Request: rubygem-dalli - High performance memcached client for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990512 Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||axill...@archlinux.gr Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|axill...@archlinux.gr Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr --- I'll take it of a 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=GpToorQ2kRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875668] Review Request: ops4j-master - OPS4J - Master POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875668 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- 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=um72R9Ho7La=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 dr.tri...@surfeu.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dr.tri...@surfeu.ch --- Comment #20 from dr.tri...@surfeu.ch --- Related to bug 990677. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nz2PntNmCWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986991] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-rails - Sprockets Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986991 --- Comment #4 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr --- Ok, now it makes sense. But again, actionpack should be updated first, no? Without a version bump (3.2.13-4.0.0), sprockets-rails still Requires rack = 1.5 and although it is built fine it cannot be installed. Is the update of actionpack scheduled anytime soon? If yes, I guess we can push sprockets-rails to rawhide now. Let me know if that's the case, I have the review ready. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bLWqT9T2Uha=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 #4 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) 1. Well, not all times I can replace the COPYING, especially I cannot get permission of upstream. But such error is not blocker. Changed to GPLv2+. I thought rpmlint errors were blockers, in this case it's ok. License tag, OK! 2. I will suggest RPM adding iconsdir macro into main package, so now I will revert to datadir/icons. Add BR of jpackage is not good ;0 Yup I was also surprised when I found the macro came from this package. 3. desktop-file-install is not a MUST, if package installs its desktop file by scripts but not by packager, we can validate it. That's why I add %check section to make sure the desktop file matches the standard. Maybe the rule should be amended with something like unless the upstream project provides it. Thanks for the explanation. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/abakus.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/abakus-0.92-2.fc20.src.rpm The package looks good to me, what's next ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=stL6uk2W95a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990279] Review Request: diskimage-builder - Image building tools for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990279
Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
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
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* Apache (v2.0).
1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/opt/stack/heat/990279-diskimage-builder/licensecheck.txt
[X]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Python:
[X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
[Bug 990279] Review Request: diskimage-builder - Image building tools for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990279 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Not blocker: Please file upstream bugs for missing manual pages as separate bugs in launchpad. Would suggest working with upstream to fix the errors printed out by rpmlint - they look like errors in the code base. Could probably submit patches to fix these problems after filing bugs. Blockers: non-readble sudoers look like a problem. If you can convince this is not a problem I'll approve the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=i1GGz5ez7Ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990279] Review Request: diskimage-builder - Image building tools for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990279 --- Comment #3 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Jeff, After fixing small sudoers problem, please submit scm request with cc list of jpeeler, sdake, pbrady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KbobkMq5zXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624 --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #4) * current spec seems OK (i also reviewed the code, seems OK too) * i found out that the shared library generated was an empty stub, i submitted a Pull Request that fixes it https://github.com/udp/json-parser/pull/31 merged and updated * i'll continue testing the library itself new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/json-parser.spec new srpm: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/json-parser-1.0.0-3.13ef5a8.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=HcPZ8fka4Za=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 #39 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sdake/821404-gimp-dds-
plugin/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[X]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: SourceX tarball
[Bug 821404] Review Request: gimp-dds-plugin - A plugin for GIMP allows to load/save in the DDS format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #40 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- APPROVED. Welcome to the packagers group! When you receive the packagers group welcome email, please submit an SCM request. Again my apologies for the 3 months delay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vKwTpjZqZ0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990512] Review Request: rubygem-dalli - High performance memcached client for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990512
Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
Since we are accelerating the packaging of Rails 4, tests are fine to be
included afterwards.
APPROVED
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.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
dalli-doc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/axil/review/990512-rubygem-dalli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile
[Bug 990691] New: Review Request: erlang-sidejob - An Erlang library that implements a parallel, capacity-limited request pool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990691 Bug ID: 990691 Summary: Review Request: erlang-sidejob - An Erlang library that implements a parallel, capacity-limited request pool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lemen...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-sidejob.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-sidejob-0.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: An Erlang library that implements a parallel, capacity-limited request pool. In sidejob, these pools are called resources. A resource is managed by multiple gen_server like processes which can be sent calls and casts using sidejob:call or sidejob:cast respectively. Fedora Account System Username: peter This is one of the requirements for Riak 1.3.2+. Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5686162 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0zjxRBjPtUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
* code review: OK
* shared library issue: OK (PR accepted and package updated)
* working package: OK (i wrote a sample C program that parses a JSON file for
testing purpose)
Since this package now complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, i hereby
approve it into Fedora Packages Collection.
I advise you to continue working with upstream on the test suite, it will
ensure that the library won't get any regression and keep working in the future
(and save time for upstream by noticing them faster).
Let me know if you experience issues in importing this package.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/json-parser/990624-json-
parser/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]:
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624 Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: json-parser Short Description: Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C 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=RKTGy3vegua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857730] Review Request: oscpack - A set of C++ classes for packing and unpacking OSC packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857730 Fedora End Of Life endofl...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2013-07-31 15:16:09 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xCbjZYMoO4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857730] Review Request: oscpack - A set of C++ classes for packing and unpacking OSC packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857730 --- Comment #12 from Fedora End Of Life endofl...@fedoraproject.org --- Fedora 17 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2013-07-30. Fedora 17 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eDXXU4w43da=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vX5aazJVPMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990624] Review Request: json-parser - Very low footprint JSON parser written in portable ANSI C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990624 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=o5tbLjQwtra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866312] Review Request: keybinder3 - Library for globally binding keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866312
Pierre-Yves Luyten p...@luyten.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@luyten.fr
--- Comment #7 from Pierre-Yves Luyten p...@luyten.fr ---
Thanks for the quick update!
First comments
* SPECS/keybinder.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
You can remove the old url.
* %description
* keybinder is a library for registering global keyboard shortcuts.
* Keybinder works with GTK-based applications using the X Window System.
U se Keybinder both cases
* Summary: Documenation for %{name}
typo, Documentation, then again typo on the same word few lines below
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nZ4LMUtwIea=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 990279] Review Request: diskimage-builder - Image building tools for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990279 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com --- I believe the sudoers.d file is supposed to have permissions of 0440 for security reasons (versions of sudo after 1.8.5 are reportedly less picky). So I'm going to leave it as is, rebase with upstream so patches can be dropped, and will submit the SCM request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=okzSGIi4XYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
