[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- clinfo-0.1-0.2.git20131001.7f44937.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=LeONXJW64P&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009750] Review Request: python-falcon - High-performance cloud API framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009750 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Lennox --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-falcon Short Description: A supersonic micro-framework for building cloud APIs Owners: jamielennox Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MIY5SkKVwR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009750] Review Request: python-falcon - High-performance cloud API framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009750
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 33 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: python-falcon (description), python3-falcon
(description)
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[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 61440 bytes in 10 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 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-falcon
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1009750] Review Request: python-falcon - High-performance cloud API framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009750 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- I can pick up the remainder of the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=F72FUkMzA0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 980934] Review Request: gstreamer-omx - GStreamer OpenMAX IL wrapper plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980934 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added CC|rlawren...@myseneca.ca | CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(pbrobinson@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=SinH3OM5DV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013807] Review Request: python-sendgrid - SendGrid library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013807 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Bruno --- Follow the SRC and the SPEC fixed: Spec URL: http://dbruno.fedorapeople.org/python-sendgrid/python-sendgrid.spec SRPM URL: http://dbruno.fedorapeople.org/python-sendgrid/python-sendgrid-0.1.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OJz8nZIf4s&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014385] Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385 Andrea Veri changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andrea.v...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andrea.v...@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=lxh2h5cIlk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gallery3-openid Short Description: OpenID support for Gallery3 Owners: puiterwijk Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QbiTSGAmxS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 Ian Weller changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Ian Weller --- All problems noted in review are fixed, so this is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qbcITz33Qv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014385] Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1014344 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TniVrLwO1o&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014353] Review Request: php-lightopenid - PHP OpenID library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014353 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1014344 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6FZZu0O9JV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1014353, 1014385 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6p6usMGHh3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- I split the lightopenid and openid-selector libraries, and added -p. I also emailed the author to ask for a new release with license text attached. Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//gallery3-openid.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//gallery3-openid-2.0-0.2.beta.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=GWWLpH1RVX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014385] New: Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014385 Bug ID: 1014385 Summary: Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//openid-selector.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A user-friendly way to select an OpenID -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AuEuvZkIlc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014382] New: Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014382 Bug ID: 1014382 Summary: Review Request: openid-selector - A user-friendly way to select an OpenID Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//openid-selector.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//openid-selector-1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A user-friendly way to select an OpenID -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lDvFjzDq2s&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014336] Review Request: python-halite - Web GUI for SaltStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014336 --- Comment #4 from Erik Johnson --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #3) > (In reply to Erik Johnson from comment #2) > > ... there is a LICENSE file > > in the upstream git repo. So, I'm working with the Halite maintainer to make > > sure that this file makes it into the sdist for future releases. > > If it is already in their Git, you should add it as Source1 for the time > being. Once it is shipped in a future release, you can remove the second > source again. OK, I've done this and updated the spec and SRPM. If you visit the links in the initial post, you can see the new versions. Thanks for the recommendation! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QAGTmOxkPv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014353] Review Request: php-lightopenid - PHP OpenID library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014353 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-lightopenid Short Description: PHP OpenID library Owners: puiterwijk Branches: el6 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=PXrRLooI6I&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014353] Review Request: php-lightopenid - PHP OpenID library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014353
Ian Weller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ian Weller ---
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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ianweller/REVIEW/1014353-php-lightopenid/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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).
[?]: 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 should be given the -p option
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tar
[Bug 1014336] Review Request: python-halite - Web GUI for SaltStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014336 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to Erik Johnson from comment #2) > ... there is a LICENSE file > in the upstream git repo. So, I'm working with the Halite maintainer to make > sure that this file makes it into the sdist for future releases. If it is already in their Git, you should add it as Source1 for the time being. Once it is shipped in a future release, you can remove the second source again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1Dq7Lj6JQe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014336] Review Request: python-halite - Web GUI for SaltStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014336 --- Comment #2 from Erik Johnson --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1) > (In reply to Erik Johnson from comment #0) > > Note that this project is under the Apache 2.0 license. Please let me know > > if I need to distribute a LICENSE file with this package. One does not > > currently exist for this project but it would be easy to create one. > > There are guidelines for: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > As far as I know, in the case of ASL the upstream projects are not forced to > ship license texts, but you should ask them anyway to provide such a text in > future releases. Yes. It turns out that, upon further investigation, there is a LICENSE file in the upstream git repo. So, I'm working with the Halite maintainer to make sure that this file makes it into the sdist for future releases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KXr5KSACx7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014336] Review Request: python-halite - Web GUI for SaltStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014336 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to Erik Johnson from comment #0) > Note that this project is under the Apache 2.0 license. Please let me know > if I need to distribute a LICENSE file with this package. One does not > currently exist for this project but it would be easy to create one. There are guidelines for: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text As far as I know, in the case of ASL the upstream projects are not forced to ship license texts, but you should ask them anyway to provide such a text in future releases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sxWCCYeKOB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014353] Review Request: php-lightopenid - PHP OpenID library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014353 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: lightopenid |Review Request: |- PHP OpenID library|php-lightopenid - PHP ||OpenID library --- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Name updated. Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//php-lightopenid.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//php-lightopenid-0.6-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1oCeSTKLGs&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014353] Review Request: lightopenid - PHP OpenID library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014353 Ian Weller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@ianweller.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@ianweller.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ian Weller --- This should be named php-lightopenid. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Naming_scheme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CyboC2Ndo4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344
--- Comment #3 from Ian Weller ---
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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/ianweller/REVIEW/1014344-gallery3-openid/licensecheck.txt
Will evaluate after LightOpenID and openid-selector are unbundled
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
LightOpenID, openid-selector
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
The non-executable-script errors are actually part of openid-selector which you
told me is being split out in IRC
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
(noarch)
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
I do not believe cp -R is sufficient for preserving timestamps, I believe you
need to add -p
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires out
[Bug 1014353] New: Review Request: lightopenid - PHP OpenID library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014353 Bug ID: 1014353 Summary: Review Request: lightopenid - PHP OpenID library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//lightopenid.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//lightopenid-0.6-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Lightweight OpenID library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qIroUHZkO4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014353] Review Request: lightopenid - PHP OpenID library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014353 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6013047 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DBWgbxzkwD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- I will decouple the embedded libraries. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GOJkgZClOD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 Ian Weller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@ianweller.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@ianweller.org 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=LcyGBzOuzi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6012971 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CIUt5l8zvF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014344] New: Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014344 Bug ID: 1014344 Summary: Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID support for Gallery3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//gallery3-openid.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//gallery3-openid-2.0-0.1.beta.fc19.src.rpm Description: Adds OpenID authentication support to Gallery3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=naH8d7ObQa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013807] Review Request: python-sendgrid - SendGrid library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013807
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann ---
Please add README.md as %doc.
The tarball contains a prebuilt egg, please remove it in %prep before building
the package:
rm -fr %{tarball_name}.egg-info
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs for more
information.
The initial cleaning of %{buildroot} in %install is obsolete for ages and can
be safely dropped.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=a6SunBCjW1&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714 --- Comment #26 from Srinivas Pandruvada --- Updated to thermal daemon version 1.03. Spec URL: http://spandruvada.fedorapeople.org/thermal-daemon.spec SRPM URL: http://spandruvada.fedorapeople.org/thermal-daemon-1.03-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cUvpKqtMpo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014336] New: Review Request: python-halite - Web GUI for SaltStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014336 Bug ID: 1014336 Summary: Review Request: python-halite - Web GUI for SaltStack Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: e...@saltstack.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dyrl1jkyiwhhzxj/python-halite.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4shqedab21j894f/python-halite-0.1.01-1.el6.src.rpm Description: salt-0.17.0 is going through the process of being entered into testing, and this package will provide the optional web GUI that was added in salt-0.17.0. Note that this project is under the Apache 2.0 license. Please let me know if I need to distribute a LICENSE file with this package. One does not currently exist for this project but it would be easy to create one. Fedora Account System Username: terminalmage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LirBOtcL7h&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957422] Review Request: tea - A text editor with hundreds of features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957422 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #21 from Rex Dieter --- ok, marking NotReady, until the bundling issue(s) are dealt with. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SSSK9LGVNn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002181] Review Request: php-phpunit-Git - Simple wrapper for Git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002181 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet --- Minor fix https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/e4980cf24d87512d60cd5e2323346bed75aa1a06 Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/e4980cf24d87512d60cd5e2323346bed75aa1a06/php/phpunit/php-phpunit-Git/php-phpunit-Git.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-phpunit-Git-1.2.0-2.remi.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=6oeubDJE1b&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904639] Review Request: rubygem-unf - Wrapper library to bring Unicode Normalization Form support to Ruby/JRuby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904639 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jstri...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jstri...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Josef Stribny --- I will take it for a review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MvZI4N3nml&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949073] Review Request: check-mk - A new general purpose Nagios-plugin for retrieving data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949073 Andrea Veri changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #29 from Andrea Veri --- Package Change Request == Package Name: check-mk New Branches: el5 Owners: averi InitialCC: averi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cdsT0uuGte&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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=qWkJpdQA41&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- clinfo-0.1-0.2.git20131001.7f44937.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clinfo-0.1-0.2.git20131001.7f44937.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=PuNeGSxude&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- clinfo-0.1-0.2.git20131001.7f44937.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clinfo-0.1-0.2.git20131001.7f44937.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=iTR51FjStW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zHZBqY3OVs&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oqEXQh8lUs&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Honza Horak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bkab...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(bkab...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #7 from Honza Horak --- (In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #6) > (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5) > > - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not > > necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so? > > It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup > script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I > think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as > possible. Staying close to upstream is generally good approach, especially when speaking about functionality/features. But I wouldn't take it too strict when speaking about content of RPMs. Removing unneeded stuff from RPM payload is quite common thing. Anyway, I'm not Python expert, but since no other module seems to do the same, I'd say it is pointless: $ repoquery --whatprovides --archlist='x86_64,noarch' '*/usr/include/python3.3m/*.h' python3-devel-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.3.2-6.fc19.x86_64 python3-devel-0:3.3.2-2.fc19.x86_64 python3-sip-devel-0:4.14.6-1.fc19.x86_64 However, let's ask Python guru, what he things about packaging /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h file. Slavku, can you express your POV? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hKEKI8eFUM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||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=beeW7RB3aa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | --- Comment #2 from Michal Srb --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bytecode-compatibility-transformer Short Description: Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk msimacek Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5YWNrenc2K&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=947A2WoPfd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qxS5AZHWAv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 --- Comment #6 from Jan Staněk --- (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #5) > - packaging header file /usr/include/python3.3m/bsddb3/bsddb.h is not > necessary IMHO. Or is there any reason to do so? It is probably not necessary, however it is installed by the upstream setup script. Of course I can remove it, but since upstream decided to ship it, I think it should stay there, to be as close to the upstream version as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qLLss5iCvv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 Fabian Deutsch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fabian.deut...@gmx.de Flags||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=cg1oUiWNXd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 --- Comment #5 from Fabian Deutsch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clinfo Short Description: Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices Owners: fabiand Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: besser82 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bsPEGbJlxO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
LGTM :)
Just drop the "%post* -p /sbin/ldconfig" on import. They are not needed,
because there's no library.
#
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]: 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:
"Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1014040-clinfo/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 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.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
---> Scriptlets are not needed. Please drop them on import.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]:
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Deutsch --- Updates: Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/fabiand/clinfo-spec/master/clinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/opencl/clinfo-0.1-0.1.git20131001.7f44937.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=HKGd5Num2v&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849496] Review Request: webbit - Event-based WebSocket and HTTP server for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849496
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
CC||punto...@libero.it
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo ---
please, these BRs must be removed are alredy requred by "java tools"
BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
BuildRequires: maven-compiler-plugin
BuildRequires: maven-install-plugin
BuildRequires: maven-jar-plugin
BuildRequires: maven-javadoc-plugin
BuildRequires: maven-resources-plugin
BuildRequires: maven-surefire-plugin
also these for the same reason
Requires: java
Requires: jpackage-utils
if you want install in /usr/share/java instead of /usr/share/java/webbit
you can use
%mvn_file org.webbitserver:%{name} %{name}
OR
%mvn_file :%{name} %{name}
OR
%mvn_file : %{name}
this is possible only for those package which provides artifacts <= 2
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=zzgFSYQ4VK&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rFz0Al1VU8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957422] Review Request: tea - A text editor with hundreds of features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957422 --- Comment #20 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #19) > I'd be happy to pick this review up if the bundling issues get sorted out. I'm sorry for getting out, but (IMHO): 1. tea need very-very hard work for preparing to Fedora and 2. tea's devel is not contactable. I tried to ask him to make some changes (like unbundle translations from binary or tune up install paths) and had reply "it's your problem". I'm sorry again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9vCU5wzEN8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch --- All koji builds succeed. F19: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6009644 F20: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6009640 rawhide: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6009633 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yoDqY81j0Y&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Deutsch --- opencl-utils plans to also provide a clinfo tool - but they say that for long and nothing happened. Mentioning this because this _could_ lead to a name clash ... but besides that there are many clinfo tools out there in the wild. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GqNh1Nj2Qo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014040] New: Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014040 Bug ID: 1014040 Summary: Review Request: clinfo - Enumerate OpenCL platforms and devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fdeut...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/fabiand/clinfo-spec/master/clinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/opencl/clinfo-0.1-0.1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A simple OpenCL application that enumerates all possible platform and device properties. Inspired by AMD's program of the same name, it is coded in pure C99 and it tries to output all possible information, including that provided by platform-specific extensions, and not to crash on platform-unsupported properties (e.g. 1.2 properties on 1.1 platforms). Fedora Account System Username: fabiand -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RRGemO3Ue7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |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=EIvZAoNrTM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- Created attachment 805801 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=805801&action=edit review notes problem: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. bytecode-compatibility-transformer-javadoc.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package contains the API documentation for bytecode-compatibility-transformer. please, fix this issues (also at import time) 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=Fo6LDbysZZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uzNBQrtQrZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=91Hrc4Bxmj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013986] New: Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013986 Bug ID: 1013986 Summary: Review Request: bytecode-compatibility-transformer - Evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/bytecode-compatibility-transformer.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/bytecode-compatibility-transformer-1.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This Java library provides a set of annotations and bytecode transformer that helps you evolve modular codebase without losing compatibility. Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=plDFMpc7SY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
