[Bug 1007152] Review Request: ghc-vector-binary-instances - Binary and Serialize instances for vector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007152
Ricky Elrod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod ---
APPROVED.
Review follows:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel. Does not
provide -static: ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
( Add -static Provides, when you import :) )
= 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.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 20 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane,
[Bug 1009750] Review Request: python-falcon - High-performance cloud API framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009750 Jamie Lennox 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=vaCYJzCFQl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1012077] Review Request: python-qpid_messaging - Python bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012077 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Fixed In Version||python-qpid_messaging-0.24- ||3.fc20 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-qpid_messaging-0.24-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable 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=34DV0tFUVe&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|20 |rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=laHVvNDpgA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014848] New: Review Request: python-mandrill - A CLI client and API library for Mandrill email service.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014848 Bug ID: 1014848 Summary: Review Request: python-mandrill - A CLI client and API library for Mandrill email service. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dbr...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://dbruno.fedorapeople.org/python-mandrill/python-mandrill.spec SRPM URL: http://dbruno.fedorapeople.org/python-mandrill/python-mandrill-1.0.51-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A Python API client and suite of CLI-based tools for the Mandrill email as a platform service. Fedora Account System Username: dbruno -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eFrJnSazmt&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 987717] Review Request: perl-GraphViz2 - A wrapper for AT&T's Graphviz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987717
Peter Oliver changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@mavit.org.uk
--- Comment #1 from Peter Oliver ---
There's a newer upstream version of this module, 2.22, and version 2.14 is
no-longer on CPAN proper. Worth setting Source0 to
"http://backpan.perl.org/authors/id/R/RS/RSAVAGE/GraphViz2-%{version}.tgz";?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ocg7WblU4G&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 #7 from Erik Johnson --- I just heard back from upstream that two of the scripts that are installed within site-packages/halite/ do need to be executed as shell commands, and I've thus added the execute bit to them. The direct links I posted in my previous message, copied below for convenience, contain the updated spec and SRPM. Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/dyrl1jkyiwhhzxj/python-halite.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4shqedab21j894f/python-halite-0.1.01-1.el6.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=RKyuu1bICy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013037] Review Request: otf2 - Open Trace Format 2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037 --- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski --- * Wed Oct 2 2013 Orion Poplawski - 1.2.1-2 - Fix rpath with configure change http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/otf2.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/otf2-1.2.1-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LkgOmXApk6&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 #6 from Erik Johnson ---
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #5)
> First, I'm not really satisfied with the behavior of your download links.
> Reviewers should be able to simply right-click on a link to save its target.
> Dropbox allows this actually, but it seems you've copied the file link from
> your browser's address bar. This doesn't point to the file itself, rather to
> a website where I have to click on a button to download it. To avoid this,
> open your Dropbox in the browser, select the desired file and click on "Copy
> public link" (sorry, could be some different, I'm using Dropbox in German).
> Even the available file manager plugins for Nautilus, Dolphin etc. should
> have such an option.
>
Well, I do not use a file manager, and Dropbox has long since gotten rid of the
"get public link" option. The only option now is a "share link" option, which
provides the URLs I specified.
However, I did some digging and the the public direct links are available if
you right-click the "Download" button on the links I originally posted, and
copy the URL. Given that knowledge, here are the public download links:
Spec URL:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/dyrl1jkyiwhhzxj/python-halite.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4shqedab21j894f/python-halite-0.1.01-1.el6.src.rpm
>
> Some of the issues need to be fixed or investigated:
>
> I don't know why $RPM_SOURCE_DIR is not allowed, but I assume there are good
> reasons for. It is unusual at least, never seen this before in a spec file.
> Just use %RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
>
This has been replaced.
> There are some scripts which have a shebang, but are not executable. Scripts
> in %{python_sitelib} don't need a shebang. Please remove them.
>
Done. And I've notified upstream about this as well, thanks.
> Don't mix spaces and tabs. I recommend spaces, because this way the spec
> file looks the same in any text editor, independent from the configured tab
> width.
>
Fixed.
> The download location for the license file is not available, please
> investigate.
>
I used ${version} instead of %{version}. In addition, I should have used the
"raw.github.com" link to get the raw text, so I fixed that as well.
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 8
> BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel
> %else
> BuildRequires: python-setuptools
> %endif
>
> First, we don't need any definitions which refer to Fedora 7 and earlier.
> Well, you could apply this condition to EPEL 5 which is based on FC6.
> Besides that, python-setuptools-devel is virtually provided by
> python-setuptools. As far as I can see, this definition can be omitted.
>
>
Removed, thanks.
> Consider to use %global instead of %define. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#.
> 25global_preferred_over_.25define for more information.
>
Fixed.
>
> Last but not least, please get rid of the spec parts which are only needed
> for EPEl 5 once your package will be imported into EPEL >= 6 and Fedora:
>
> * BuildRoot definition
> * The header which defines python_sitelib
> * Initial cleaning of buildroot in %install
> * The %clean section
> * %defattr line in %files
I'm sorry, but I had trouble understanding what you meant here. Do you mean
that these parts are not needed anymore? Or that they should be enclosed within
%if blocks like so:
%if ! (0%{?rhel} >= 6 || 0%{?fedora} > 12)
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%endif
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KtjlpkydRx&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 Status|NEW |POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openid-selector Short Description: A user-friendly way to select an OpenID 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=FMuSiTxaVZ&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 #4 from Daniel Bruno --- The SRC and SPEC were 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gtpDMtepjv&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|ASSIGNED|NEW
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andrea Veri ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/averi/1014385-openid-
selector/licensecheck.txt
Seems the sources are using two different headers for the BSD 3 Clause license,
which is actually just fine given the 'New BSD License' matches the 'BSD 3
Clause'.
[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 consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 6 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]: 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.
Please make sure to have a LICENSE file included sooner or later.
[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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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 tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTR
[Bug 1014336] Review Request: python-halite - Web GUI for SaltStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014336
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann ---
First, I'm not really satisfied with the behavior of your download links.
Reviewers should be able to simply right-click on a link to save its target.
Dropbox allows this actually, but it seems you've copied the file link from
your browser's address bar. This doesn't point to the file itself, rather to a
website where I have to click on a button to download it. To avoid this, open
your Dropbox in the browser, select the desired file and click on "Copy public
link" (sorry, could be some different, I'm using Dropbox in German). Even the
available file manager plugins for Nautilus, Dolphin etc. should have such an
option.
Scratch build::
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6017702
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-halite.src: I: checking
python-halite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-halite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve,
devil, revel
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-halite.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/saltstack/halite/
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-halite.src:51: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have to use
a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
python-halite.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab:
line 11)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
python-halite.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/saltstack/halite/blob/v${version}/LICENSE (timeout 10
seconds)
python-halite.src: W: invalid-url Source1:
https://github.com/saltstack/halite/blob/v${version}/LICENSE HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
python-halite.src: I: checking-url
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/halite/halite-0.1.01.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
python-halite.noarch: I: checking
python-halite.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore,
pee
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-halite.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve,
devil, revel
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-halite.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/saltstack/halite/
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-halite.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/halite/bottle.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
python-halite.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/halite/server_bottle.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
python-halite.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/halite/genindex.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
python-halite.spec:51: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have to use
a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
python-halite.spec:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab:
line 11)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
python-halite.spec: I: checking-url
https://github.com/saltstack/halite/blob/v${version}/LICENSE (timeout 10
seconds)
python-halite.spec: W: invalid-url Source1:
https://github.com/saltstack/halite/blob/v${version}/LICENSE HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
python-halite.spec: I: checking-url
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/halite/halite-0.1.01.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings.
Some of the issues need to be fixed or investigated:
I don't know why $RPM_SOURCE_DIR is not allowed, but I assume there are good
reasons for. It is unusual at least, never seen this before in a spec file.
Just use %RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
There are some scripts which have a shebang, but are not executable. Scripts in
%{python_sitelib} don't need a s
[Bug 1010725] Review Request: qt5-qttranslations - Qt5 - QtTranslations module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010725 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jTV3kum9jp&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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6017686 $ rpmlint -i -v * python-sendgrid.src: I: checking python-sendgrid.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/sendgrid/sendgrid-python/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-sendgrid.src: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/sendgrid/sendgrid-0.1.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) python-sendgrid.noarch: I: checking python-sendgrid.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/sendgrid/sendgrid-python/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-sendgrid.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-sendgrid/README.md This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. python-sendgrid.spec: I: checking-url https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/sendgrid/sendgrid-0.1.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Please fix the wrong line endings in README.md, and your package is ready for a full 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=RfJbpxXpwo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014738] Review Request: python-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014738 --- Comment #1 from Sergio Pascual --- Some comments astropy-0.2.4 comes with SOFA[1], a non free library by the IAU. It has been substituted by ERFA[2] in the development repository and I have backported the changes to this version, so it uses ERFA instead. It has other bundled libraries, I have removed them except cfitsio for f20+.[3], where the version of cfitsio is incompatible with astropy. The python3 subpackage is possible, but it's broken due to some bugs [4], [5] [1] http://www.iausofa.org/ [2] https://github.com/liberfa/erfa [3] https://github.com/astropy/astropy/issues/1504 [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014665 [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014505 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nc49n7d3h7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014738] New: Review Request: python-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014738 Bug ID: 1014738 Summary: Review Request: python-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sergio.pa...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/python-astropy.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/python-astropy-0.2.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The Astropy project is a common effort to develop a single core package for Astronomy. Major packages such as PyFITS, PyWCS, vo, and asciitable already merged in, and many more components being worked on. In particular, we are developing imaging, photometric, and spectroscopic functionality, as well as frameworks for cosmology, unit handling, and coordinate transformations. Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QxAm9Sah1e&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 Andrea Veri changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #16 from Andrea Veri --- All the issues should be fixed, thanks. Please give it a look so I can finally push it. [1] http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec [2] http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-2.20130621svn12.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=Lcmn9GDCQX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014619] Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014619 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||enlightenment -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tYPxrT666m&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014619] Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014619 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||954132 ||(Enlightenment-Tracker) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SF3bzhqeM7&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 Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Honza Horak --- Sounds fine for me 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=whZetr4SE5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014619] Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014619 Dan Mashal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||methe...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Dan Mashal --- *** Bug 891295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zcKh8vdCED&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014619] New: Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014619 Bug ID: 1014619 Summary: Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/enlightenment.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/enlightenment-0.17.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Enlightenment window manager is a lean, fast, modular and very extensible window manager for X11 and Linux. It is classed as a "desktop shell" providing the things you need to operate your desktop (or laptop), but is not a whole ' application suite. This covered launching applications, managing their windows and doing other system tasks like suspending, reboots, managing files etc. Fedora Account System Username: sundaram -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4r3VCgddXv&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 --- 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=DlrTSnKaPl&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 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=cDE2N1UhgM&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 #7 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=m3ipA0YgNy&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 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=LNbKhSjv30&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014607] New: Review Request: python-jsmin - JavaScript minifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014607 Bug ID: 1014607 Summary: Review Request: python-jsmin - JavaScript minifier Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mkri...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/python-jsmin.spec SRPM URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/python-jsmin-2.0.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: JavaScript minifier. It can be used for compressing JavaScript files in e.g. Flask framework. The inclusion of LICENSE file has been requested: https://bitbucket.org/dcs/jsmin/issue/7/include-license-file Fedora Account System Username: mkrizek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8TBByAXz2G&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014601] New: Review Request: python-cssmin - A Python port of the YUI CSS compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014601 Bug ID: 1014601 Summary: Review Request: python-cssmin - A Python port of the YUI CSS compression algorithm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mkri...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/python-cssmin.spec SRPM URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/python-cssmin-0.1.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A Python port of the YUI CSS compression algorithm. It can be used for compressing of CSS files in e.g. Flask framework. The inclusion of LICENSE file has already been requested: https://github.com/zacharyvoase/cssmin/issues/8 Fedora Account System Username: mkrizek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wFJBNx080f&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 #9 from Jan Staněk --- OK then, I removed the header from the final package. I also added LICENSE file as separate (local) source, until upstream releases updated version with (hopefully) fixed licensing issues. Here is the current version: Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/python3-bsddb3/python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SwovrorryR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014544] New: Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 Bug ID: 1014544 Summary: Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: moc...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://helallinux.com/paste/show.php?id=1220 SRPM URL: http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/opensuse/repositories/home:/Kenzy:/packages/Fedora_19/src/almohawell-9.3-1.1.src.rpm Description: Almohawell is a fork of alien program , and it's a developed copy of Almasa alien which written to convert between packages. Almohawell has many features which not found on alien and Almasa alien Almohawell support many types of packages like rpm , tgz , deb .. for convert and install. Fedora Account System Username: moceap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=unOcI4C7zi&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 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bkab...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #8 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Hmm, we usually don't ship *.h files with Python extension packages, but I guess it depends on the use case. If there are some other libraries/users that may need including these headers, then shipping them in -devel subpackage is probably fine. Usually, this is not a case, so I'd advise to not ship the headers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FBHcrpalDX&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
--- Comment #5 from Josef Stribny ---
1, There is a newer upstream version (0.1.2).
2, The %description section of -doc sub-package should end up with a dot(.).
3, You should use a macro %{gem_libdir} for lib dir instead of
%{gem_instdir}/lib/
4, And again license file is not separately listed. This requires more work in
the end (for me to check it, for you to check it with every update of the gem)
and it's prone to error.
Otherwise rpmlint doesn't complain, package builds, installs and runs. Please
fix the issues above so I can approve.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W1A6qFfnRd&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
