[Bug 982204] Review Request: elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) Well it seems to build and install okay here but I still recommend using Elm Just a remark: I guess you are aware, there once was a then-very-popular email client called elm [1]. Though I am not aware about any current Linux distro is shipping it, I'd expect finding a package named elm would cause some confusion *nix old-timers ;) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_%28e-mail_client%29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dpShZcANkYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 993482] Review Request: rubygem-geoip - Search a GeoIP database for an IP address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=993482 Jan Včelák jv+fed...@fcelda.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jv+fed...@fcelda.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jv+fed...@fcelda.cz QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |jv+fed...@fcelda.cz --- Comment #2 from Jan Včelák jv+fed...@fcelda.cz --- I will do the review of this 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=PTlK7Aztika=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007577] Review Request: arprec - Software package for performing arbitrary precision arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007577
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
--- Comment #3 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #2)
There are several details in the spec, I do not understand:
a) Why this:
...
# the testsuite is a good example for using this lib
cp -a tests examples
rm -rf examples/._*\
examples/Makefile*
...
To make these files available as examples, before building starts cluttering
the tests directory with intermediate files (*.o etc.)?
Yes, exactly. :) Added some more verbose comment in spec.
b) Why are you running autoreconf?
I do not see any reason why this spec needs to run autoreconf.
The tarball seem to contain broken timestamps, but these can be overcome in
less intrusive ways, which do not expose the sources to the risks of
autoreconf (Autoreconf is very dangerous, esp. in cases sources contain
fortran code).
purged
c) What are these ._* files to be found all over the place?
I think, all of them are not used and probably can be removed in %prep.
These files are purged during %prep now, too.
d) arprec-config contains arch-specific settings
= arprec-common-devel can not be noarched
My advise would be to implement a new arprec-config based on pkg-config
which is call-compatible to the original arprec-config.
merged common-devel with devel pkg.
e) IMO, the packaging is unnecessarily fine grained.
That said, I do not see much reasons for arprec-common-devel, arprec-doc,
arprec-tools-common and would advise against this kind of packaging.
as said above. renamed the tools-common to %{name}-data. But this pkg really
is noarch'ed data of ~ 72 MByte (noarch.rpm is ~30 MByte).
#
Update:
%changelog:
* Fri Sep 13 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.2.16-2
- renamed tools-common pkg to data
- merged common-devel pkg with devel, because it can't be noarch
- removed calling autoreconf during %%build
- some minor improvements in %%prep, mostly comments
- as suggested in rhbz# 1007577 c#2
* Thu Sep 12 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.2.16-1
- Initial rpm release (#1007577)
Koji Builds:
el5: no el5 build for this. autotools are too dated.
el6: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930081
F18: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930085
F19: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930088
F20: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930091
Frh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930095
Urls:
Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/arprec.spec
SRPM URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/arprec-2.2.16-2.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=pLaGBOrmxBa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007577] Review Request: arprec - Software package for performing arbitrary precision arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007577 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.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=9Q43K4n9oTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msu...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- Taking. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EBMBZFnRbQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007604] Review Request: xflr5 - Analysis tool for airfoils, wings and planes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007604 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/xflr5.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/xflr5-6.09.06-2.fc21.src.rpm * Fri Sep 13 2013 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com - 6.09.06-2 - Use qmake_qt4 macro - Refresh icon cache -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wVJSBVXS0la=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 998469] Review Request: rubygem-unicode-display_width - Support for east_asian_width string widths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998469 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- Updated: Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-unicode-display_width/rubygem-unicode-display_width.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-unicode-display_width/rubygem-unicode-display_width-0.1.1-8.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=GSfkeWPa2ia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982204] Review Request: elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3) Just a remark: I guess you are aware, there once was a then-very-popular email client called elm [1]. Though I am not aware about any current Linux distro is shipping it, I'd expect finding a package named elm would cause some confusion *nix old-timers ;) Right - it had crossed my mind. I did a little digging and as far as I can tell the last release that shipped with elm was RHL 7.3 (2002). (I don't see it in Fedora Extras either.) So I hope this is not a big concern still now. But it might be an additional argument for calling this package Elm instead of elm. :) (If it is really is a concern perhaps we could call it elm-lang in line with the upstream website but this will only makes maintenance life harder.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xS8MUu0GAoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007635] Review Request: rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on - Advanced tagging for Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007635 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 this as I need it for GitLab, thanks for submitting. But before I review this, fix the src.rpm as it points to a different gem ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=enVsAGuNsUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007577] Review Request: arprec - Software package for performing arbitrary precision arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007577
--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
d) arprec-config contains arch-specific settings
This issue persists:
diff -Naur x86_64/usr/bin/arprec-config i386/usr/bin/arprec-config
--- x86_64/usr/bin/arprec-config2013-09-13 09:34:38.0 +0200
+++ i386/usr/bin/arprec-config 2013-09-13 09:45:30.0 +0200
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=/usr
includedir=/usr/include
-libdir=/usr/lib64
+libdir=/usr/lib
bindir=/usr/bin
datadir=${prefix}/share
mandir=/usr/share/man
@@ -15,12 +15,12 @@
LIBS=-L$libdir -larprec
FC=f95
-FCLIBS=-L$libdir -larprecmod -larprec
-L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.1 -L/usr/lib/
+FCLIBS=-L$libdir -larprecmod -larprec
-L/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.8.1 -L/usr/lib/gc
FCFLAGS=
MODINC=-I $includedir/arprec
FMAINLIB=-L$libdir -larprec_f_main
-configure_args= '--build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
'--host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' '--progra
+configure_args= '--build=i686-redhat-linux-gnu'
'--host=i686-redhat-linux-gnu' '--program-pr
usage()
{
cat EOF
= My remark from comment#2 is still valid.
You'd see rpm installation conflicts when installing
*-devel.i386 and *-devel.x86_64 in parallel (This is a multilib problem!).
el5: no el5 build for this. autotools are too dated.
No idea, why you writing saying this. Right, it fails to build on epel5,
however not due to the autotools, but for rpm-incompatibilities:
...
error: Group field must be present in package: (main 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=lM2hLncMb5a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 993482] Review Request: rubygem-geoip - Search a GeoIP database for an IP address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=993482
Jan Včelák jv+fed...@fcelda.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(ktdreyer@ktdreyer
||.com)
--- Comment #3 from Jan Včelák jv+fed...@fcelda.cz ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
Please, fix or justify following issues. Then the package can be approved.
Issues on fedora-review checklist (see the details below):
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
Other issues (maybe pedantic):
[!]: Directive %exclude is usually used when the file is covered by other
match in %files section. This is not the case. 'rm' can be used after
%build or %install instead.
[!]: The presence of tests in the -doc subpackage is IMHO wrong. I would
leave them in the main package.
= 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Directory '/usr/share/gems/doc' is not owned. In addition, i think
the documentation should be placed somewhere else.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
There should be just (others are extra):
Requires: ruby(release)
Requires: rubygems
[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.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
There should be just (others are extra):
BuildRequires: rubygems-devel
[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.
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
License file is installed as executable.
I think the installation of geoip binary is cryptic. I do not like
the combination of cp, find, xargs and chmod. I would prefer
'install -m 0755 ...'. But the result is fine, feel free to keep this
as it is now.
[-]: 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
[-]: 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.
[x]:
[Bug 1007374] Review Request: python-troveclient - Client library for OpenStack DBaaS API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007374 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- ImportError: No module named reddwarfclient ChangeLog:Rename from reddwarf to trove. … ChangeLog:Renamed reddwarfclient repo to troveclient. … -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rS775zJShWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
* description should end with dot. (-doc subpackage)
* *I* would put README.md into main package (if you disagree, let it be)
* *I* would keep the original %{gem_name}.gemspec and put it into -doc
subpackage. It may be usefull for developers. (if you disagree, let it be)
* remove executable attr from LICENSE
rubygem-exception_notification.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gems/gems/exception_notification-4.0.0/LICENSE
* .gitkeep can be removed
rubygem-exception_notification-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/exception_notification-4.0.0/test/dummy/public/stylesheets/.gitkeep
rubygem-exception_notification-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gems/gems/exception_notification-4.0.0/test/dummy/public/stylesheets/.gitkeep
rubygem-exception_notification-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gems/gems/exception_notification-4.0.0/test/dummy/lib/tasks/.gitkeep
rubygem-exception_notification-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gems/gems/exception_notification-4.0.0/test/dummy/lib/tasks/.gitkeep
Otherwise it looks good to me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=brxCmOJKUya=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 929083] Review Request: python-peewee - A small, expressive orm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929083 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-peewee New Branches: el6 Owners: mstuchli -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q3XgfxcMSGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947799] Review Request: python-flask-mongoengine - Flask extension that provides integration with MongoEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947799 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-flask-mongoengine New Branches: el6 Owners: mstuchli -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jB4yROSz8Fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007635] Review Request: rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on - Advanced tagging for Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007635 --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Oh man, whoops! X-D SPEC: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on.spec SRPM: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on-2.4.1-1.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=RtwOBEV3XZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112
--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Thank you very much for reviewing.
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2)
* description should end with dot. (-doc subpackage)
Fixed. (Thanks also for proposing https://github.com/lutter/gem2rpm/pull/25!)
* *I* would put README.md into main package (if you disagree, let it be)
* *I* would keep the original %{gem_name}.gemspec and put it into -doc
subpackage. It may be usefull for developers. (if you disagree, let it be)
For these two, I'll respectfully decline. My hope is to keep the packages
light-weight if possible (particularly the main package, since that's likely to
be installed in a lot of places). If it is important to be consistent, I think
these could be proposed as changes to the Ruby Packaging Guidelines wiki page
and gem2rpm template.
* remove executable attr from LICENSE
rubygem-exception_notification.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gems/gems/exception_notification-4.0.0/LICENSE
Great catch, thank you.
* .gitkeep can be removed
Good catch, and I removed a .gitignore file as well.
Package diff:
http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-exception_notification.git/commit/?id=0885d91392db166049312379d3cdcfc821c07ec6
Spec URL:
http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-exception_notification.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-exception_notification-4.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
Rawhide scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930644
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1QlPyNFbxia=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007577] Review Request: arprec - Software package for performing arbitrary precision arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007577
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
--- Comment #5 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4)
d) arprec-config contains arch-specific settings
This issue persists:
diff -Naur x86_64/usr/bin/arprec-config i386/usr/bin/arprec-config
--- x86_64/usr/bin/arprec-config2013-09-13 09:34:38.0 +0200
+++ i386/usr/bin/arprec-config 2013-09-13 09:45:30.0 +0200
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=/usr
includedir=/usr/include
-libdir=/usr/lib64
+libdir=/usr/lib
bindir=/usr/bin
datadir=${prefix}/share
mandir=/usr/share/man
@@ -15,12 +15,12 @@
LIBS=-L$libdir -larprec
FC=f95
-FCLIBS=-L$libdir -larprecmod -larprec
-L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.1 -L/usr/lib/
+FCLIBS=-L$libdir -larprecmod -larprec
-L/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.8.1 -L/usr/lib/gc
FCFLAGS=
MODINC=-I $includedir/arprec
FMAINLIB=-L$libdir -larprec_f_main
-configure_args= '--build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
'--host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' '--progra
+configure_args= '--build=i686-redhat-linux-gnu'
'--host=i686-redhat-linux-gnu' '--program-pr
usage()
{
cat EOF
= My remark from comment#2 is still valid.
You'd see rpm installation conflicts when installing
*-devel.i386 and *-devel.x86_64 in parallel (This is a multilib problem!).
This should be fixed now by using modified arprec-config wrapper pkg-config.
el5: no el5 build for this. autotools are too dated.
No idea, why you writing saying this. Right, it fails to build on epel5,
however not due to the autotools, but for rpm-incompatibilities:
...
error: Group field must be present in package: (main package)
...
I've added the needed bits for el5, but during %build you can see %configure
throws warnings about too dated autotools' stuff. Testsuite seems to pass, so
I don't expect problems with el5 now.
#
Update:
%changelog:
* Fri Sep 13 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.2.16-3
- added needed bits for el5
- created an ascii-txt license from the license.doc provided by upstream
- nuked rpath from %%{_bindir}/%{name}-math*
- added .pc-file to solve the multiarch-problematic and aged %%{name}-config
- run `autoupdate` and `autoreconf -fiv` to fixup obsolete autotools-macros
for el6+
* Fri Sep 13 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.2.16-2
- renamed tools-common pkg to data
- merged common-devel pkg with devel, because it can't be noarch
- removed calling autoreconf during %%build
- some minor improvements in %%prep, mostly comments
- as suggested in rhbz# 1007577 c#2
* Thu Sep 12 2013 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com - 2.2.16-1
- Initial rpm release (#1007577)
Koji Builds:
el5: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930762
el6: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930766
F18: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930770
F19: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930773
F20: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930777
Frh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930782
Urls:
Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/arprec.spec
SRPM URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/arprec-2.2.16-3.fc21.src.rpm
#
This update should solve all issues found so far.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6k5vuNLIkya=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- For these two, I'll respectfully decline. OK Everything else 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=aqMu4zej4na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 993482] Review Request: rubygem-geoip - Search a GeoIP database for an IP address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=993482 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags|needinfo?(ktdreyer@ktdreyer | |.com) | --- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thank you very much for the review. (In reply to Jan Včelák from comment #3) [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Directory '/usr/share/gems/doc' is not owned. I think this may be a bug in fedora-review? I have seen this pop up on every gem I have created and reviewed. /usr/share/gems/doc is properly owned by a package (yum whatprovides /usr/share/gems/doc shows rubygems). In addition, i think the documentation should be placed somewhere else. Can you help me understand what you have in mind? I'm pretty sure this is where all gems place their documentation. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. There should be just (others are extra): Requires: ruby(release) Requires: rubygems Thanks, I've filtered out /usr/bin/ruby in 1.3.0-2. [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. There should be just (others are extra): BuildRequires: rubygems-devel This probably needs to be fixed in gem2rpm. I've removed the extra BuildRequires in 1.3.0-2. [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. License file is installed as executable. Great catch. Fixed. I think the installation of geoip binary is cryptic. I do not like the combination of cp, find, xargs and chmod. I would prefer 'install -m 0755 ...'. But the result is fine, feel free to keep this as it is now. I agree that it's cryptic. I'll keep it as-is for the sake of consistency with other packages. But this probably needs to be fixed in gem2rpm. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Final provides are sane, but rubygem(name) should not be specified in Provides explicitly, it is generated by rpm. I experimented with this, and I cannot make RPM generate the virtual provide. When I remove the explicit Provides: rubygem(name) in the .spec, and I check the resulting binary RPM with rpm -qp --provides, I just see rubygem-geoip, not rubygem(geoip). I think this is why gem2rpm puts this into the package. Here's the updated package: Diff: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-geoip.git/commit/?id=5865ec8fb6094a6483e436a6d0c571ea56d7b682 Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-geoip.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-geoip-1.3.0-2.fc21.src.rpm Rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930798 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5WCDodLmTVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112 --- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- You rock, thanks a lot! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HkeORcjYzIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-exception_notification Short Description: Exception notification for Rails apps Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f19 f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=h2sGZYeBG9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924 --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Hi Ralf, Now that this is in stable, would you be ok with closing out this bug? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Stream-Buffered -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jNI09edDFVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800105] Review Request: perl-Net-Google-Calendar - Programmatic access to Google's Calendar API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800105 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||avibra...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(avibrazil@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Hi Avi, it's been a while since you replied on this bug. Are you still interested in packaging this for Fedora? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DCgzMrqYYea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800264] Review Request: perl-Net-Google-DataAPI - Base implementations for modules to negotiate with Google Data APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800264 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||avibra...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(avibrazil@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Hi Avi, it's been a while since you replied on this bug. Are you still interested in packaging this for Fedora? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zGAoLVOeZma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 929083] Review Request: python-peewee - A small, expressive orm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929083 --- Comment #11 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=ai7AnV75Aka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 929083] Review Request: python-peewee - A small, expressive orm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929083 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=BvvFqTJ5FHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947799] Review Request: python-flask-mongoengine - Flask extension that provides integration with MongoEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947799 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=HPSOZBXCSCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 947799] Review Request: python-flask-mongoengine - Flask extension that provides integration with MongoEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947799 --- Comment #11 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=biF3IlLJ4Ka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112 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=2oX0ilIanDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112 --- Comment #7 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=b2LeYMTMHsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007635] Review Request: rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on - Advanced tagging for Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007635
Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Axilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
Ok looks good, 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[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
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[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
[Bug 907924] Review Request: perl-Stream-Buffered - Temporary buffer to save bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907924 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-09-13 10:12:28 --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #3) Hi Ralf, Now that this is in stable, would you be ok with closing out this bug? Sure, wonder why this wasn't closed long ago :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=67YXqNpmEca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007539] Review Request: xfoil - Subsonic Airfoil Development System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007539
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Checking: xfoil-6.97-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
xfoil.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C XFOIL is an interactive program
for the design and analysis of subsonic isolated airfoils.
xfoil.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pplot
xfoil.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xfoil
xfoil.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pxplot
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Apart from that all looks good. This package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[x] = 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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 118 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /tmp/review-xfoil/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.
[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.
[x]: 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 122880 bytes in 4 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:
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include
[Bug 1007622] Review Request: edfbrowser - Opensource, multiplatform, universal viewer.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007622
Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
--- Comment #4 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com ---
Hi:
my changes..
1- ok , done.
2-
The source directory ./images have different png so i want only one to use in
order to use it with edfbrowser.desktop that is on sources to apply with
desktop configuration, so i choose to use the same that the package name.
actual -- install -pm 0644 images/%{name}.png
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/
proposed -- install -pm 0644 images/edf.png
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/%{name}.png
Let me know if it is ok .
3- I use /* in order to prevent the creation of extra doc directory after the
name of package and plus i added LICENSE file.
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=4zzvxlisWEa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007964] New: Review Request: arptables - User space tool to set up tables of ARP rules in kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007964 Bug ID: 1007964 Summary: Review Request: arptables - User space tool to set up tables of ARP rules in kernel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jpope...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/arptables.spec SRPM URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/arptables-0.0.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The arptables is a user space tool used to set up and maintain the tables of ARP rules in the Linux kernel. These rules inspect the ARP frames which they see. arptables is analogous to the iptables user space tool, but is less complicated. Fedora Account System Username: jpopelka Note: This is a renaming review request. arptables is going to replace existing arptables_jf 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=sft7TfoCETa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1007540-xrotor/licensecheck.txt
The compilation involves also the '/Xrotor/plotlib/Xwin.c' file; it's licensed
with
a LGPLv2+ (with incorrect FSF address) license.
Like so other files with unknown license, for example '/Xrotor/src/xaero.f'.
If upstream considers all source files realesed with GPLv2+, so it should
indicate it.
In that case, License tag should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 3 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and
[Bug 1007964] Review Request: arptables - User space tool to set up tables of ARP rules in kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007964 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- install with -p. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u9bBz9H6Oca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007541] Review Request: avl - Aerodynamic and flight-dynamic analysis of rigid aircrafts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007541 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl-3.32-3.fc21.src.rpm * Fri Sep 13 2013 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com - 3.32-3 - Fix license Btw, the discussion concerning the conflict in ongoing here [1]. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/189185.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=qvcWiLdTXDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007972] New: Review Request: hawaii-icon-theme - Icon themes for the Hawaii desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007972 Bug ID: 1007972 Summary: Review Request: hawaii-icon-theme - Icon themes for the Hawaii desktop environment 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/hawaii-icon-theme.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/hawaii-icon-theme-0.1.90-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is an icon-theme for Hawaii desktop environment. 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=GU6E2RuMhHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- On second thought, the situation is pretty clear. Fixed. Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/xrotor.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/xrotor-7.55-3.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=Rnp88beeeva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007964] Review Request: arptables - User space tool to set up tables of ARP rules in kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007964 --- Comment #2 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) install with -p. Thanks Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/arptables.spec SRPM URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/arptables-0.0.4-2.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=lXDP7Y0oF9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) Oh joy. Well, the website [1] states: XROTOR is released under the GNU General Public License. and points to this license file [2]. I meant that license should be indicated at the top of every file. I had already seen the license link in the upstream website. ;) On second thought, the situation is pretty clear. Fixed. Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/xrotor.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/xrotor-7.55-3.fc21.src.rpm Package 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=IS4UX5lBNLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 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=PIaHwG8aRQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 --- Comment #7 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=yOD05GDusba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xrotor Short Description: Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills Owners: smani Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=34H8CSbALca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Oh joy. Well, the website [1] states: XROTOR is released under the GNU General Public License. and points to this license file [2]. According to the license matrix [3], this is perfectly ok: plotlib is LGPLv2+ and xrotor, which is GPLv2+, links against that library. I'm unsure however what the effect on the License tag is (i.e. whether I need to specify both). [1] http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xrotor/ [2] http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/gpl.txt [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vF8qd595gNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006112] Review Request: rubygem-exception_notification - Exception notification for Rails apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006112 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | 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=9ZpoZmjxj5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007615] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007615 --- Comment #1 from Matt Rose mattr...@folkwolf.net --- The new package is rebuilt and available: spec: http://folkwolf.net/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts.spec SRPM: http://folkwolf.net/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts-1.017-3.fc19.src.rpm RPM: http://folkwolf.net/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts-1.017-3.fc19.noarch.rpm It's identical to the one that was reviewed in Bug #860249, I just rebuilt it on fedora 19 and bumped the 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=KZ7bmNyoA0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007615] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007615 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Thanks, prior review comments are still valid, current .spec looks mmm-mmm good. APPROVED (and sponsored). welcome to fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=V9xaUMqejDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007615] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007615 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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=o81O5lAEaHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xrotor-7.55-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xrotor-7.55-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6PH1Scf7BLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007595] Review Request:openshift-origin-cartridge-cron - Embedded cron support for OpenShift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007595
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-cartridge-cron.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-cartridge-cron-1.11.0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
- Now use rm/mkdir/cp instead of %__rm/%__mkdir/%__cp
- Now docs are in %{_pkgdocdir}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KZ6jqInZwga=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007594] Review Request: openshift-origin-cartridge-diy - DIY OpenShift cartridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007594
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-cartridge-diy.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-cartridge-diy-0.8.0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
- Now use rm/mkdir/cp instead of %__rm/%__mkdir/%__cp
- Now docs are in %{_pkgdocdir}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nvjku8cgb3a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 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=j7TBHRo2oka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007615] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007615 Matt Rose mattr...@folkwolf.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Matt Rose mattr...@folkwolf.net --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts Short Description: A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments Owners: mattrose Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: ibotty -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ujFuaQS43ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007615] Review Request: adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - A set of mono-spaced OpenType fonts designed for coding environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007615 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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=RE5yuyp34oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007478] Review Request: compress-lzf - Basic LZF codec, compatible with standard C LZF package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007478 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||wi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wi...@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=lrwJQhiYu3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958533] Review Request: android-json-org-java - Androids rewrite of the evil licensed Json.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958533 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||wi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wi...@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=OAwEEQBDBDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007479] Review Request: fastutil - Fast compact type-specific collections for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007479 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||wi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wi...@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=hMF25NKQOMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007540] Review Request: xrotor - Design and analysis tools for propellers and windmills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007540 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xrotor-7.55-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xrotor-7.55-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VPrJwaY11aa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 999136] Review Request: python-backports-lzma - Backport of Python 3.3's lzma module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999136 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags||needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora ||project.org) --- Comment #5 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org --- Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-4/python-backports-lzma.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports-lzma/0.0.2-4/python-backports-lzma-0.0.2-4.fc18.src.rpm * Tue Aug 20 2013 Ian Weller iwel...@redhat.com - 0.0.2-4 - Fix perms on _lzma.so - Add LICENSE from upstream -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O2Axyptclwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008057] New: Review Request: python-musicbrainzngs - Python bindings for MusicBrainz NGS webservice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008057 Bug ID: 1008057 Summary: Review Request: python-musicbrainzngs - Python bindings for MusicBrainz NGS webservice Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@ianweller.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-musicbrainzngs/0.4-1/python-musicbrainzngs.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-musicbrainzngs/0.4-1/python-musicbrainzngs-0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: ianweller Description: This library implements webservice bindings for the MusicBrainz NGS site, also known as /ws/2. For more information on the MusicBrainz webservice see: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/XML_Web_Service -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ek8oeI2Zsua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008058] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008058 Bug ID: 1008058 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@ianweller.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-munkres/1.0.5.4-1/python-munkres.spec SRPM URL: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-munkres/1.0.5.4-1/python-munkres-1.0.5.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: ianweller Description: The Munkres module provides an implementation of the Munkres algorithm (also called the Hungarian algorithm or the Kuhn-Munkres algorithm). The algorithm models an assignment problem as an NxM cost matrix, where each element represents the cost of assigning the ith worker to the jth job, and it figures out the least-cost solution, choosing a single item from each row and column in the matrix, such that no row and no column are used more than once. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=erHJmxZ3EMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008058] Review Request: python-munkres - Munkres algorithm for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008058 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: |package name here - short |python-munkres - Munkres |summary here |algorithm for Python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=B7fX71HpfEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008059] New: Review Request: xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin - An alternate application launcher for Xfce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008059 Bug ID: 1008059 Summary: Review Request: xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin - An alternate application launcher for Xfce Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin/xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin.spec RPMS URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin/xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin-1.1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Alternate application launcher for Xfce. When you open it you are shown a list of applications you have marked as favorites. You can browse through all of your installed applications by clicking on the category buttons on the side. Top level categories make browsing fast, and simple to switch between. Additionally, Whisker Menu keeps a list of the last ten applications that you’ve launched from it Fedora Account System Username: echevemaster Tested on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5933959 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YvXV2nAp6Ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
