[Bug 991693] Review Request: perl-Archive-Any-Lite - Simple CPAN package extractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991693 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Archive-Any-Lite Short Description: Simple CPAN package extractor Owners: pghmcfc Branches: f18 f19 f20 el5 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig Thanks for the review Ken. License file requested upstream: https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=88571 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Lv9f7T1ASR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006187] New: Reveiw REquest: lv2-fabla - an LV2 sampler plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006187 Bug ID: 1006187 Summary: Reveiw REquest: lv2-fabla - an LV2 sampler plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org lv2-fabla is a MIDI controllable drum sampler plugin with an ADSR envelope. LV2 is the latest linux audio plugin standard for use in hosts such as Ardour and Qtractor. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-fabla-0.0.1-0.2.gite8fb937.fc19.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-fabla.spec rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/lv2-fabla-*-0.2* ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-fabla.spec ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lv2-fabla-0.0.1-0.2.gite8fb937.fc19.src.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-fabla.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: lv2-fabla-presets-0.0.1-20130719git4cc9bc4.tar.gz /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-fabla.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: lv2-fabla-0.0.1-20130908gite8fb937.tar.gz lv2-fabla.src: W: invalid-url Source2: lv2-fabla-presets-0.0.1-20130719git4cc9bc4.tar.gz lv2-fabla.src: W: invalid-url Source0: lv2-fabla-0.0.1-20130908gite8fb937.tar.gz 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hPO39uukSb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006197] New: Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006197 Bug ID: 1006197 Summary: Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dkho...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/stockfish/stockfish.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/stockfish/stockfish-4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Stockfish is a free UCI chess engine derived from Glaurung 2.1. It is not a complete chess program, but requires some UCI compatible GUI (like XBoard with PolyGlot, eboard, Arena, Sigma Chess, Shredder, Chess Partner or Fritz) in order to be used comfortably. Read the documentation for your GUI of choice for information about how to use Stockfish with your GUI. Fedora Account System Username: halfie Original RFE: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820796 Koji Task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5916924 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dQknS8ZKAl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006041] Review Request: heisenbug-backgrounds - Heisenbug desktop backgrounds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006041 Design Software changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||design-devel@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org --- Comment #5 from Design Software --- Scm request to cc to design-sw pseudo fas New Package SCM Request === Package Name: heisenbug-backgrounds Short Description: Heisenbug desktop backgrounds Owners: mso Branches: f20 InitialCC: design-sw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4MxD7O4AgA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 --- Comment #14 from Andrea Veri --- Done. http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-1.20130621svn12.fc19.src.rpm and http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KPxKGXsqd8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006197] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006197
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
1. I've edited the common rpmlint error solutions page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
Please avoid using dos2unix if possible.
2. %{_var} should be %{_localstatedir}
3.
# polyglot file
install -m 644 Book.bin $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_var}/lib/games/%{name}
# the opening book
install -m 644 polyglot.ini $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_var}/lib/games/%{name}
missing -p option to preserve the timestamp.
4. Source1 should be:
Source1:
http://cl.ly/3x333m0G173F/download/%{name}-%{book_version}-book.zip
5. I've sent an email to website maintainer of stockfish, hope they can add a
sourcetarball download link on the website.
6. No %{optflags} during compiling?
I can see:
debug = no
optimize = yes (Research again contexts found:
# optimize = yes/no --- (-O3/-fast etc.) --- Enable/Disable optimizations
?O.0?)
7. Why not use make install?
8. If one want to use your package on ppc(Peter Lemenkev), I think the
installation way you've defined is not good. IMO upstream should use configure
script to do that but actually not.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XYBqQxGfBN&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Why not 2.2.0 from sf.net? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wZzi9YPEAG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- Also a note before you upload 2.2.0 to here: Use %qmake_qt4 instead of plain qmake_qt4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YexFmeBxFd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- Yohan, can you clean your mock environment and try again fedora-review to see if still has this bug? If so I will add xargs to the spec.(But I've met the same issue like this) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4NNCoKWawn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006197] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006197
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt ---
* Run rpmlint (or rpmlint -i for more helpful output) on the src.rpm and all
built rpms. Feel free to ignore obvious false positives in the report, but fix
anything else. Preferably add a comment here about whether/when you think what
rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect.
> %setup -q -n %{upstream_name}-%{upstream_short_name}_%{version}
>
> unzip %{SOURCE1}
%setup can unzip, too. You don't need a second line for that. Use:
%setup -q -a 1 -n %{upstream_name}-%{upstream_short_name}_%{version}
> 2. %{_var} should be %{_localstatedir}
Giving a rationale/explanation would be more helpful. We don't use macros just
for fun. Nothing during the build uses %{_localstatedir}. The %configure macro
isn't used either (it would pass --localstatedir=/var to the build framework).
So, using %{_var} is fine, but only provided that you use it consistently. The
sed substitution uses a hardcoded /var, so I would either use /var or %{_var}
everywhere, but not mix them.
> %build
That section currenly only supports a few architectures and doesn't call make
for unknown archs. ExclusiveArch or ExcludeArch usage is missing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support
> install -m 644 Book.bin $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_var}/lib/games/%{name}
To be verified. Is that path correct?
The Polyglot .ini file contains a /usr/share/games/stockfish/Book.bin path.
Also consider contacting the Fedora Games SIG, since they tell that runtime
configuration files should go in /var/games/%{name} instead.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games
-> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/Packaging
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KetZj0EXIj&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt --- * The shared libs MUST be executable, or else the automated -debuginfo package generation and stripping of the files would not work. It's a packaging mistake to make them mode 0644. * Run rpmlint (or rpmlint -i for more helpful output) on the src.rpm and all built rpms. Feel free to ignore obvious false positives in the report, but fix anything else. Preferably add a comment here about whether/when you think what rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect. * "BuildRequires: python-sphinx" is missing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wkB5CTUvP9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #10) > * The shared libs MUST be executable, or else the automated -debuginfo [cut] Replied in mailing list, thanks! > * "BuildRequires: python-sphinx" is missing. This has been fixed in my local spec, I haven't uploaded it. Thanks again!(Nice help!) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A1ilLBVJBY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng --- Spec URL: http://cicku.me/python-pygit2.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/python-pygit2-0.19.0-4.fc21.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=a5dd6eT8Lm&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 --- Comment #4 from Josh Bressers --- 2.2.0 requires Gnuradio 3.5, this is a snapshot of the Gnuradio 3.6 branch. It's based off version 2.1, I'm unsure if it has all the changes 2.2 has. I've not made it that far into investigation. Also, thanks for the %qmake_qt4 tip, I didn't know that macro existed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WEINe5D3xn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000583] Review Request: fcitx-anthy - Anthy Engine for Fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000583 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | 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=8MxcYKb6DJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006295] New: Review Request: libreoffice-gallery-vrt-network-equipment - a network equipment shape gallery for LibreOffice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006295 Bug ID: 1006295 Summary: Review Request: libreoffice-gallery-vrt-network-equipment - a network equipment shape gallery for LibreOffice Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dtar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libreoffice-gallery-vrt-network-equipment.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libreoffice-gallery-vrt-network-equipment-1.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A network equipment shape gallery for LibreOffice. The gallery includes * Clients & Displays: desktop, thin client, laptop, tablets, phones, industrial panel PCs, wide-screen TV and projector systems. * Peripherals: Just printers and fax for now. * Servers: a range of tower, rack and industrial PCs with emblems for a range of server roles - mix-n-match to suit (the tower can also be used with the thin client to create a desktop tower). * Network & Power: Infrastructure for your network, including industrial fibre/Ethernet/serial components and odds and ends for wireless and mesh networking, solar systems and UPS. * Sensors & Controllers: PLCs & remote I/O, RTUs, data loggers, electricity, water and gas meters, CCTV. Fedora Account System Username: dtardon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PvxWPh0fRF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from David Tardon --- fedora-review+ got reset somehow... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PFZDsOogIU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dRiyt1VOVU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4dbRjxF3qy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 Eric Christensen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||spa...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Eric Christensen --- SPEC says license is GPLv3+ but I also found some BSD-licensed pieces: /dsp/agc_impl.cpp /qtgui/freqctrl.cpp /qtgui/meter.cpp /qtgui/meter.h /qtgui/plotter.cpp as well as some unlicensed pieces: /dsp/afsk1200/costabf.c /dsp/agc_impl.h /input/fcdctl/hid-libusb.c /input/fcdctl/hidapi.h /input/fcdctl/hidmac.c /input/fcdctl/hidraw.c /input/fcdctl/hidwin.c /qtgui/freqctrl.h /qtgui/plotter.h /qtgui/qtcolorpicker.cpp /qtgui/qtcolorpicker.h -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iV9yhX4whi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 Eric Christensen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|spa...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LkHoQLonI1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 --- Comment #6 from Eric Christensen --- Created attachment 795996 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=795996&action=edit License check -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rJgMOh7Fk1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104
--- Comment #7 from Eric Christensen ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[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
[!]: 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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL
(v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/echriste/1006104-gqrx/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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 req
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande ---
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.
[!]: 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.
%doc line is missing. Please add it in %files section.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown
or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/958059-yum-axelget/licensecheck.txt
axelget's license is imprecise: axelget.py file is licensed with a GPLv2+,
LICENSE file reports a GPLv3. What's right one ?
Please, contact the upstream.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages
These directories (/usr/lib/python2.7/*) are owned by python-libs package.
There is just a file that installation puts in
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ directory,
you must indicate only which.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/yum-plugins(yum)
Same here: /usr/lib/yum-plugins directory is owned by 'yum' package. You must
indicate just which file/files must be installed inside.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Changelog is not updated.
[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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: 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:
[!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
"If you wish to use a single spec file to build for multiple distributio
[Bug 979166] Review Request: tora - Toolkit for Oracle, MySQL and PostreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979166
Matthias Kuhn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthias.k...@gmx.ch
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Kuhn ---
General:
1. The help files should not go into %{_libdir}.
2. The Summary and %description focuses very much on Oracle, while the
appropriate BuildRequires are commented out. The resulting binary and the
summary/description should match.
3. I would recommend maintaining the .desktop file as a separate source file.
Running rpmlint -i on the resulting .rpm:
1. There is an incorrect free software foundation address in the README file.
Upstream should be informed.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
2. There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share
(see helpfile comment above)
3. /usr/share/doc/tora-3/NEWS: The character encoding of this file is not
UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile's %prep section for example
using iconv(1).
4. Binary tora: Each executable in standard binary directories should have a
man page.
Running rpmlint -i on the .src.rpm:
1. There are some bogus dates in the changelog.
Disclaimer: I'm not an approved fedora packager, so this review is probably not
perfect at all.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9NmaUYHhwo&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977208] Review Request: Phalcon - A web framework implemented as a C extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977208 --- Comment #27 from Renich Bon Ciric --- Hey Roman! Sorry; got lost in work! Also, lost my dev1 server. Do you happen to have a copy of the most current SRPM? Anyway, quick answers: - The necessary flags are CFLAGS="-O2 -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks" - I'll see what's up with other arch support. Hopefuly, they are buildable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vy6WOXmunF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] New: Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 Bug ID: 1006461 Summary: Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/munge-maven-plugin/munge-maven-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/munge-maven-plugin/munge-maven-plugin-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Munge is a purposely-simple Java preprocessor. It only supports conditional inclusion of source based on defined strings of the form "if[tag]", "if_not[tag]", "else[tag]", and "end[tag]". Unlike traditional preprocessors, comments, and formatting are all preserved for the included lines. This is on purpose, as the output of Munge will be distributed as human-readable source code. To avoid creating a separate Java dialect, the conditional tags are contained in Java comments. This allows one build to compile the source files without pre-processing, to facilitate faster incremental development. Other builds from the same source have their code contained within that comment. The format of the tags is a little verbose, so that the tags won't accidentally be used by other comment readers such as javadoc. Munge tags must be in C-style comments; C++-style comments may be used to comment code within a comment. Like any preprocessor, developers must be careful not to abuse its capabilities so that their code becomes unreadable. Please use it as little as possible. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XilgQJEFor&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006116] Review Request: WALinuxAgent - The Windows Azure Linux Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006116 --- Comment #4 from Michael Hampton --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3) > What's that (From your spec)? > ... > %pre > # Nothing to do > true > ... > > Why is this present? Seems entirely superflous to me. Yes, it's superfluous. It also came from upstream. I'd be happy to remove it if it's a problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9VCskh9k7p&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957573] Review Request: php-aws-sdk - amazon web services sdk for php
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957573 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|NEW |ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- Package php-aws-sdk-2.4.5-2.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing php-aws-sdk-2.4.5-2.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-16275/php-aws-sdk-2.4.5-2.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TUdZMPLAcA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Whiteboard||Trivial --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- This is a trivial review. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5919513 rpmlint output: munge-maven-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's munge-maven-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessors -> processors, predecessors, microprocessor munge-maven-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee munge-maven-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado All above warnings are false-positives. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sTqf13AR2x&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #36 from Rex Dieter --- Package Change Request == Package Name: qt5-qtwebkit New Branches: el6 Owners: hobbes1069 rdieter InitialCC: Co-maintainers welcome! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aQ1N2rll15&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VRnMBoBfcz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880387] Review Request: python-pymongo - Python driver for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880387 Pádraig Brady changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||pbr...@redhat.com --- Comment #34 from Pádraig Brady --- EL6 update submitted: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pymongo-2.5.2-3.el6 Also the above package is in testing at the RDO repos at http://openstack.redhat.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=d06cQYVHwU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1006491 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=w4KndZmAfQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006197] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006197
--- Comment #3 from Dhiru Kholia ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
> 6. No %{optflags} during compiling?
Yes, we respect the upstream flags since this is a 100% CPU bound application
and they are experts when it comes to "ricing" ;)
> I can see:
>
> debug = no
> optimize = yes (Research again contexts found:
These settings are fine and are desirable for good performance.
> 8. If one want to use your package on ppc(Peter Lemenkev), I think the
> installation way you've defined is not good. IMO upstream should use
> configure script to do that but actually not.
I don't have a good solution for this problem (is there one you know?).
Also, I don't think that the upstream will consider using configure stuff any
time 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=RNhnG7HkqD&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006197] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006197 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt --- That's a surprising response, given that the -debuginfo package is empty, and the guidelines have been ignored: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=V91MBV3X4X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- build fails + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd munge-maven-plugin-munge-maven-plugin-1.0 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + . /usr/share/java-utils/pom_editor.sh + pom_remove_plugin maven-release-plugin + set +x Operation on POM has no effect. seem an effect of new pom macros on 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=6MibnBCeJU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 --- Comment #37 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2kSsi1bwFr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2akOlhHDeu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Fixed. Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/munge-maven-plugin/munge-maven-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/munge-maven-plugin/munge-maven-plugin-1.0-1.fc21.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=SVBST9xp4l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ibNDOyeAMY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006197] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006197 --- Comment #5 from Dhiru Kholia --- Using "debug = no" was a mistake on my part, which is fixed now. Michael, thanks for pointing it out. The -debuginfo package is fine now. I still need to think about using (or fixing) those upstream provided compiler flags. Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/stockfish/stockfish.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/stockfish/stockfish-4-2.fc19.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5920402 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IZ1iA784WR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EtoYKyXW1R&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880203] Review Request: rubygem-strong_parameters - Permitted and required parameters for Action Pack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880203 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer --- Hi Josef, I can take this review. Would you mind unmarking "tests" as %doc? Also it looks like this package should be updated for the latest Ruby guidelines. For example, you should run "gem unpack" and "gem spec" in %prep, "gem build" in %build, etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JuKZvqlMQF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880203] Review Request: rubygem-strong_parameters - Permitted and required parameters for Action Pack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880203 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jstri...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(jstribny@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer --- Also, please update to the latest upstream (0.2.1), and update the License field to "MIT". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3AyS3uJEgG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846913] Review Request: libcommuni - Communi is a cross-platform IRC client library written with Qt 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1006556 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4FiIU5KrMa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915920] Review Request: qt5-qtsvg - Qt5 - QtSvg component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915920 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Rex Dieter --- Package Change Request == Package Name: qt5-qtsvg New Branches: el6 Owners: rdieter InitialCC: Co-maintainers welcome! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XMrMxGKUCA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 Alexandru Csete changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oz9...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Alexandru Csete --- Hello, As the author of gqrx I do not recommend packaging any 2.1 development snapshots from the 3.6 branch. Gqrx 2.2 is newer and requires GNU Radio 3.7 (not 3.5 as stated above). The 2.1-series were random snapshots made available only because of the long development time. 2.2 is the only officially supported release since 2.0. There will be no updates for the 2.1-series. I hope at some point you can upgrade to GNU Radio 3.7 - for sure that will piss off many users who depend on GNU Radio 3.6, but you can then package gqrx 2.2 or any later version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OZnnJ49WHV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"CDDL", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1006461-munge-maven-
plugin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/munge-maven-plugin
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/munge-maven-
plugin
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/mave
[Bug 1006461] Review Request: munge-maven-plugin - Munge Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006461 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Thank you for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: munge-maven-plugin Short Description: Munge Maven Plugin Owners: mizdebsk msrb sochotni Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZyUeKY6oG0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977208] Review Request: Phalcon - A web framework implemented as a C extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977208 --- Comment #28 from Renich Bon Ciric --- Ok, upstream said (paraphrased): "I've never tried compiling in PPC or ARM; so I don't know" Let's just remove that restriction and see what happens. If there is a way of marking non X86/X86_64 arches as experimental, it would be cool. Btw, if anyone has an SRPM, I'd appreciate it. Otherwize, gotta restart the SPEC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xLr9QFqMJk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bress...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(bressers@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- GNU Radio 3.7.1 is already pushed to rawhide ad f20, so reporter please resubmit a new spec/SRPM with issues 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=Kk5AoyoEC9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854728] Review Request: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854728 --- Comment #4 from Wei-Lun Chao --- I have just learned how to use koji and fedorapeople. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5921496 SPEC URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/bat-extratools.spec SRPM URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/bat-extratools-14.0-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nT1j6acQ1W&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854729] Review Request: bat-extratools-java - A collection of extra java tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854729 --- Comment #4 from Wei-Lun Chao --- I have just learned how to use koji and fedorapeople. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5921513 SPEC URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/bat-extratools-java.spec SRPM URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/bat-extratools-java-14.0-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pVcks6iFHo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854728] Review Request: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854728
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng ---
1. No parrallel make.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make
2. #%{_bindir}/bat-generate-version-chart.py
I'm curious about the commented file. Reason?
3. License tag: License: GPLv2 or GPLv2+
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WiO353VOOD&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854729] Review Request: bat-extratools-java - A collection of extra java tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854729 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Alias||bat-extratools-java -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HfSa7pCRQl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854728] Review Request: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854728 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||bat-extratools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ee1FS0IwWE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977208] Review Request: Phalcon - A web framework implemented as a C extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977208 --- Comment #29 from Roman Mohr --- (In reply to Renich Bon Ciric from comment #28) > Ok, upstream said (paraphrased): "I've never tried compiling in PPC or ARM; > so I don't know" > > Let's just remove that restriction and see what happens. If there is a way > of marking non X86/X86_64 arches as experimental, it would be cool. > Hi Reich, I still have them. I will send you an email tonight. > Btw, if anyone has an SRPM, I'd appreciate it. Otherwize, gotta restart the > SPEC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mbVwhQpMK5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006197] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006197 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Dhiru Kholia from comment #5) > I still need to think about using (or fixing) those upstream provided > compiler flags. Well, you MUST use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS/%optflags to make sure the binaries are compatible to all current and futures architectures and features supported by Fedora and its build infrastructure. That said, * "-g -O3" doesn't provide substantial advantages over "-g -O2" * "-msse" is implied by Fedora's gcc's implicit default set of cflags on architectures it is applicatible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZL4Ak9q0Wv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
