[Bug 1009996] Review Request: jetring - GPG keyring maintenance using changesets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009996 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > perl(Cwd) > perl(File::Temp) > perl(Getopt::Long) > perl(strict) > perl(warnings) > > Seems it needs perl modules, you forgot to require them. Not quite. These should be added to "BuildRequires:" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oQFpvDm1T5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010334] Review Request: python-jenkinsapi - A Python API for accessing resources on a Jenkins(CI) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010334 --- Comment #2 from Praveen Kumar --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > Please update to the latest version. > > I STRONGLY recommend you using pypi: > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jenkinsapi/0.2.14 Ah, It was update yesterday but still don't have licence info which github source have, i mailed to upstream to add it to pypi tarball. will wait for their reply. > > This will simplify the spec and your work. > > And, > > 1. Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Done > > 2. No need to add a comment "# For noarch packages: sitelib". Done -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nFpcKyFgGB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010613] Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010613 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius --- Some remarks: - Package contains a testsuite. Please add %check make check - Package fails to build on arm: ... + CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -march=armv7-a -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=hard' + ./configure --libdir=/usr/lib --includedir=/usr/include/ck --mandir=/usr/share/man --prefix=/usr Detecting operating system...success [linux] Detecting machine architecture...failed [unsupported] [http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5966306] - The contents of build/ck.build. is quite questionable. 1) They try to override cpp defines from the name space reserved to the system (compiler/libc). So far, though this isn't correct, the impact of this happens to be harmless. 2) ck.build.i386 sets -msse -msse2. This is not allowed in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vi0GZMgtID&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009996] Review Request: jetring - GPG keyring maintenance using changesets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009996 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y7mPLIavF1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009996] Review Request: jetring - GPG keyring maintenance using changesets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009996
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
1. Its homepage is http://joeyh.name/code/jetring/
Although hasn't been updated for 6 years, you still need to use it.
2.
Requires
jetring (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/perl
gnupg
perl(Cwd)
perl(File::Temp)
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
Seems it needs perl modules, you forgot to require them.
3. jetring.src: W: strange-permission jetring_0.20.tar.gz 0600L
Ah, I think this can be ignored. But if you want, please report upstream.
4. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Ah, why not?
5.
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-checksum
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-review
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-gen
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-signindex
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-accept
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-diff
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-build
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-explode
jetring.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jetring-apply
Well, I can find many manpages in the tarball, please install them also.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=T3tZkQjUou&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010613] New: Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010613 Bug ID: 1010613 Summary: Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit 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/ck.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/ck-0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Concurrency Kit provides a plethora of concurrency primitives, safe memory reclamation mechanisms and lock-less and lock-free data structures designed to aid in the design and implementation of high performance concurrent systems. It is designed to minimize dependencies on operating system-specific interfaces and most of the interface relies only on a strict subset of the standard library and more popular compiler extensions. 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=3ukzeskihJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010334] Review Request: python-jenkinsapi - A Python API for accessing resources on a Jenkins(CI) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010334 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- Please update to the latest version. I STRONGLY recommend you using pypi: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jenkinsapi/0.2.14 This will simplify the spec and your work. And, 1. Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 2. No need to add a comment "# For noarch packages: sitelib". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YiStFOnzWu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 Satyajit Sahoo changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HR9azXlIWR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009967] Review Request: golang-googlecode-net - Supplementary Go networking libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009967 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- golang-googlecode-net-0-0.6.hg84a4013f96e0.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vKRnb57gdr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967659] Review Request: robojournal - cross-platform journal/diary tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967659 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1009703 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=faI0NoPn01&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009703] Review Request: RoboJournal - Keep a journal/diary of day-to-day events in your life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009703 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On||967659 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iOIAWlOgZG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010000] Review Request: devscripts - Scripts for Debian Package maintainers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=101 --- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani --- Debian only uses /usr/lib (that is, before multiarch[1]), so the reason /usr/lib is used is probably because the package targets debian. On Fedora OTOH we have /usr/lib64, so I'd say that is where the shared library should go. As far as debchange.pl is concerned, /usr/lib appears only in a comment, so hardly worth patching it. Sed vs patch + %if: I guess when a patch should be preferred over a shell command in the spec is a matter of taste for very small changes. In this case I feel that a sed command is simpler and easier to maintain (i.e. much like adjusting line endings is also done with shell commands). The postinst and postrm scripts: - postinst upgrades /etc/devscripts.conf with new options added with new releases of the package. I think in Fedora we usually just ship the newest default config file, specify the config files as %config(noreplace), which then causes rpm to install the files with the .rpmnew suffix, and it is up to the user to adapt the old config file. So postinst in unnecessary. - postrm: this removes the config file when --purge is passed to apt-get. rpm does not have purge, but automatically saves the config files to .rpmsave. So this scriplet also is unnecessary. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zhtScu6Z6Y&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005498] Review Request: python-caja - Python bindings for Caja
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005498 --- Comment #4 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- Thank you for the review Björn. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=H4XXFyiO0D&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005498] Review Request: python-caja - Python bindings for Caja
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005498 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-caja Short Description: Python bindings for Caja Owners: raveit65 Branches: f18 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=lKd1eQZUZK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010565] Review Request: tapkee - C++ template library for efficient dimension reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010565 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Thanks for the review, Wolfgang! :) You can ignore the rpmlint warnings about those *.pgm-files. They are images in some raw-format, but rpmlint isn't aware of that and treats them wrongly as plain/txt. # New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tapkee Short Description: C++ template library for efficient dimension reduction Owners: besser82 Branches: f18 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=kL5QRo7Q18&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 --- Comment #10 from Satyajit Sahoo --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9) > (In reply to Satyajit Sahoo from comment #8) > > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > > > I've packaged it for a long time, CCing. > > > > I couldn't find a package! Link? > > I've packaged it in my private repo for a long time since I first used it on > Archlinux, I planned to package it for Fedora, but now you submitted it. So > please go ahead ;) Thanks :D -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=54uudcj04G&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010565] Review Request: tapkee - C++ template library for efficient dimension reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010565
Wolfgang Ulbrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich ---
APPROVED !
Maybe you should try to fix some rpmlint warnings, minor.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
"Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)". 80 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rave/1010565-tapkee/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code:
/home/rave/1010565-tapkee/upstream-unpacked/Source99/gtest-1.6.0/include,
/home/rave/1010565-tapkee/upstream-unpacked/Source0/tapkee-1.0/include
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 8 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subp
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Satyajit Sahoo from comment #8) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > > I've packaged it for a long time, CCing. > > I couldn't find a package! Link? I've packaged it in my private repo for a long time since I first used it on Archlinux, I planned to package it for Fedora, but now you submitted it. So please go ahead ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZuXAutkzc9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010334] Review Request: python-jenkinsapi - A Python API for accessing resources on a Jenkins(CI) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010334 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bQspb1f5Ow&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 --- Comment #8 from Satyajit Sahoo --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > I've packaged it for a long time, CCing. I couldn't find a package! Link? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E1ugCbxk7k&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 --- Comment #7 from Satyajit Sahoo --- Spec URL: http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix.spec SRPM URL: http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e7S4g6k47x&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- I've packaged it for a long time, CCing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t5sUAKeUdT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557
--- Comment #5 from Satyajit Sahoo ---
I've fixed the issues you mentioned.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
---> Changed license to GPLv3+.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
---> Added version.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
---> Removed %defattr.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
---> Sorry, no clue.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> Probably it should now.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
---> Used `%{__cp} -pr` instead of `%{__cp} -r`.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
---> Used %global instead of %define. Removed %{author}.
I've also splitted the package. But I still don't understand why I should split
the package. One who installs the GTK theme is expected to have both the GTK2
and GTK3 themes, coz new apps are mostly GTK3. And he would also need the
metacity themes, even if he uses Xfwm4, in case he uses compiz.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kDQJtDm5gA&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005498] Review Request: python-caja - Python bindings for Caja
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005498
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package has minor issues. No blockers :) Please fix them on SCM-import.
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
---> this is intentional on python-plugins.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 8
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1005498-python-caja/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/caja-python, /usr/share/python-caja,
/usr/share/doc/caja-python
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/python-caja,
/usr/lib64/caja-python, /usr/share/doc/caja-python
[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 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 71680 bytes in 26 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: 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 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package
[Bug 1010565] Review Request: tapkee - C++ template library for efficient dimension reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010565 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chat-to...@raveit.de Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chat-to...@raveit.de 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=XwS18w8hmh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010565] New: Review Request: tapkee - C++ template library for efficient dimension reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010565 Bug ID: 1010565 Summary: Review Request: tapkee - C++ template library for efficient dimension reduction Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bjoern.es...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: Tapkee is a C++ template library for dimensionality reduction with some bias on spectral methods. The Tapkee origins from the code developed during GSoC 2011 as the part of the Shogun machine learning toolbox. The project aim is to provide efficient and flexible standalone library for dimensionality reduction which can be easily integrated to existing codebases. Tapkee leverages capabilities of effective Eigen3 linear algebra library and optionally makes use of the ARPACK eigensolver. The library uses CoverTree and VP-tree data-structures to compute nearest neighbors. To achieve greater flexibility we provide a callback interface which decouples dimension reduction algorithms from the data representation and storage schemes. Tapkee provides implementations of the following dimension reduction methods: * Locally Linear Embedding and Kernel Locally Linear Embedding (LLE/KLLE) * Neighborhood Preserving Embedding (NPE) * Local Tangent Space Alignment (LTSA) * Linear Local Tangent Space Alignment (LLTSA) * Hessian Locally Linear Embedding (HLLE) * Laplacian eigenmaps * Locality Preserving Projections * Diffusion map * Isomap and landmark Isomap * Multidimensional scaling and landmark Multidimensional scaling (MDS/lMDS) * Stochastic Proximity Embedding (SPE) * PCA and randomized PCA * Kernel PCA (kPCA) * Random projection * Factor analysis * t-SNE * Barnes-Hut-SNE Koji Builds: el5: no el5 build for this, no eigen3 available. el6: no el6 build for this, eigen3 is too old (< 3.1.2) for this. F18: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5964460 F19: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5964465 F20: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5964468 Frh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5964472 Issues: fedora-review shows no issues, rpmlint reports some false positives. You can ignore the rpmlint warnings about those *.pgm-files. They are images in some raw-format, but rpmlint isn't aware of that and treats them as plain/txt. :) Fedora Account System Username: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/tapkee.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/tapkee-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Additional Information: This is currently FTBFS on rawhide, because of rhbz# 1010551 # Thanks for review in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hDU6ESfGah&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010565] Review Request: tapkee - C++ template library for efficient dimension reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010565 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1010551 Alias||tapkee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rCaCTus81U&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 Christoph Wickert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert --- I strongly encourage you to package the different parts (gtk, openbox, gnome,...) of the theme separately. Have at look at the specs of the albatross or bluebird themes for some inspiration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E2wFFUyFim&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package has some issues. :(
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
---> there's no LICENSE / COPYING in tarball.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
---> see rpmlint's output below
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
---> this is not even needed for el5. remove it, please.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
---> there are issues inside spec-file. see remarks in this report.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: 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]: 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.
---> ask upstream to include a file describing the actual license.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
---> `%{__cp} -r` should be `%{__cp} -pr` to preserve timestamps, too.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define theme Numix, %define
author satya164
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 Satyajit Sahoo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7HAho5RQTK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 --- Comment #2 from Satyajit Sahoo --- Oh. I forgot to mention, this is my first package and I need a sponser. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6xSTJtaWqk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 --- Comment #1 from Satyajit Sahoo --- Hi. It would be great if the theme can get into the Fedora repos. The theme supports GTK 3.10 and Client Side Decorations, and hence compatible with Fedora 20. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RSiyeraoTq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010557] New: Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 Bug ID: 1010557 Summary: Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix GTK theme for Gnome, Xfce and Openbox Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: satyajit.ha...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix-gtk-theme.spec SRPM URL: http://satya164.fedorapeople.org/numix-gtk-theme/numix-gtk-theme-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Numix is a modern flat theme with a combination of light and dark elements. It supports Gnome, Unity, XFCE and Openbox. Fedora Account System Username: satya164 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Dci4PcFtIS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955682] Review Request: nblocks - Classic falling blocks on console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955682 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-09-21 07:32:41 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- No. I should have closed that review for a while. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YQqnYX9Y62&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955804] Review Request: nzbget - Command-line based binary newsgrabber for nzb files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955804 --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #8) > BuildError: package nzbget is blocked for tag f19-updates-candidate > > who can unblock the package for f18 and f19 ? Maybe you should try it again? Recently I had a similar problem with a f20 build, and I needed more than one attempt. Moreover, the Git module doesn't have a f20 branch yet: $ git branch -a * master remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master remotes/origin/el6 remotes/origin/f14 remotes/origin/f15 remotes/origin/f16 remotes/origin/f17 remotes/origin/f18 remotes/origin/f19 remotes/origin/master -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A8M1D01Jbi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008651] Review Request: python-xdot - Interactive viewer for Graphviz dot files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008651 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- We need python2-devel explicitely as build requirement: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires The source tarball contains an prebuilt egg, you have to remove it in %prep before building your package: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs The header which defines python_sitelib is unnecessary since EPEL6/F12. Can be safely dropped unless you want to package for EPEL5. This also applies to the initial cleaning of buildroot in %install. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8GxAY0q1cb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009996] Review Request: jetring - GPG keyring maintenance using changesets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009996 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MuZSM6mJj6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969580] Review Request: python-gccinvocation - Library for parsing GCC command-line options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969580 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-09-21 06:00:19 --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann --- Still no updates in Bodhi. Sorry for being so impertinent, but I will close this ticket now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LJ5kAFgp1U&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955682] Review Request: nblocks - Classic falling blocks on console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955682 --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #6) > BTW, the "srpm" file link points to a binary package. The package link is dead anyway, and the spec file hasn't been changed since my last comment. Are you still working on 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=ABvR91uuso&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010000] Review Request: devscripts - Scripts for Debian Package maintainers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=101
--- Comment #6 from Dridi Boukelmoune ---
I have a question about the sed command:
```
# Search for libvfork in %%{_libdir}/%%{name}
sed -i 's|/usr/lib/devscripts/libvfork.so.0|%{_libdir}/%{name}/libvfork.so.0|g'
scripts/dpkg-depcheck.pl
```
Is this package multilib-capable ?
I wonder whether the LIBDIR in the Makefile is meant to be changeable to
/usr/lib64 or just to /usr/local/lib.
With a `grep -F /usr/lib/ -r devscripts-2.13.3/` I can see that apparently dpkg
either strictly uses /usr/lib (like systemd) or you should also patch
`debchange.pl'. Which brings me to the next question, why sed instead of a
patch wrapped in an %if statement ?
With the same grep command, I've spotted a deb `postinst' script. There's also
a `postrm'. Shouldn't you have similar %post and %postun scriptlets in your
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=BtifPGOmIg&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
