[Bug 1014619] Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014619 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- enlightenment-0.17.4-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/enlightenment-0.17.4-4.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806117] Review Request: python-oplop - Generate account passwords based on account nicknames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806117
--- Comment #19 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
I agree with @cicku
As I said above the package don't have support for python =< 2.4; so do you
must remove the epel5 stuff
- %clean is not needed
- BuildRoot is not needed
and remove these lines:
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 5
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")}
%endif
btw, I don't know why always the pipy tarballs never contains the boilerplate
of the licenses (thing that annoying me), but in the package's github we can
see the license , please add of local way or build all the package directly
from the github's source =>
https://github.com/brettcannon/oplop/blob/master/LICENSE
if you decide build from github's sources please handle the url following the
guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806117] Review Request: python-oplop - Generate account passwords based on account nicknames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806117 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #18 from Christopher Meng --- It's nonsense to add support for EL5 as el5 only has py2.4 http://pkgs.org/search/?keyword=python-devel&search_on=name&distro=2 And looking into https://github.com/brettcannon/oplop/blob/master/Python/setup.py We can see it needs at least 2.6. So please drop el5 support and remove all unneeded fields. Another note is that https://github.com/brettcannon/oplop should be the URL of this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 904640] Review Request: rubygem-domain_name - Domain Name manipulation library for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904640 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru TASAKA --- http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-domain_name.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-domain_name-0.5.13-1.fc.src.rpm * Tue Oct 8 2013 Mamoru TASAKA - 0.5.13-1 - 0.5.13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928609] Review Request: xpra - screen for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928609 --- Comment #28 from Antoine Martin --- > "don't ship webm stuff that doesn't work without ffmpeg anyway" I don't know who told you that, this is wrong. "webm" (aka "webp") has nothing to do with ffmpeg. VPX, which is a distant cousin of webp, does require ffmpeg (for colourspace conversion via ffmpeg's "swscale"), this is a soft runtime dependency. FYI: it should even be possible to enable client VPX support without swscale installed when rendering to accelerated GL windows - this isn't implemented yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016370] New: Review Request: rubygem-capillary - Generate a JSON payload from Git log output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016370 Bug ID: 1016370 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-capillary - Generate a JSON payload from Git log output Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ktdre...@ktdreyer.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-capillary.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-capillary-1.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Capillary works in conjunction with capillary.js, which outputs a beautiful graphical representation of your repository history. Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer rpmlint complains that AGPLv3+ is not a valid license, but this is a bug in rpmlint (RH bug 894187). F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6034256 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919703] Review Request: libgap - libGAP -- a C library version of the GAP kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919703 --- Comment #17 from Jerry James --- The comments below apply to the spec file from comment 13. According to comment 4, gmp is not used at the moment. However, it is being linked in. A new run of fedora-review reports only one error: libgap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgmp.so.10 Can we prevent linking libgap against libgmp until such time as that makes sense? All of the other issues I raised have been fixed, so if we can just fix this one and the problem with the x86-specific test, we're ready to go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014607] Review Request: python-jsmin - JavaScript minifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014607 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Sadly, the fact that this is based on Douglas Crockford's non-free jsmin makes this one non-free as well. Feel free to reach out to Mr. Crockford if you are feeling masochistic, perhaps his stance on his silly joke license clause has changed with time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919703] Review Request: libgap - libGAP -- a C library version of the GAP kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919703
--- Comment #16 from Jerry James ---
It's trying to print the value of the ebp register, which only exists on x86.
I don't see why that is even necessary. It doesn't seem to be checked or used
in any way. Perhaps print_stack_start() could be made conditional on x86
platforms, something like this:
#if defined(__i686__) || defined(__x86_64__)
void print_stack_start()
{
...
}
#else
void print stack_start()
{
int i;
printf("&i = %p\n", &i);
printf("frame addres = %p\n", __builtin_frame_address(0));
}
#endif
I will comment more on the current spec file in a couple of hours.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Package looks correct. Upstream has unfortunately moved to v. 2.4 in the meantime. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016221] Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016221
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng ---
CCing because of interests.
Marking DUP of before one.
Thoughts:
1. I can see license clarification at the top of the spec, I don't think we
need that.
2. I don't know if you can remove :
in the spec? As it's looking funny since this spec is not difficult for reading
like kernel.
3. Group: System Environment/Daemons
Since Fedora doesn't need it as MUST, you can remove that or change to the
correct one, I don't think it's a daemon.
4. Remove some tags cause they are obsoleted after Fedora 10:
BuildRoot:
--
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
--
Whole %clean section
--
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
5. I can see old style:
Requires: %{name} = 0:%{version}-%{release}
Please remove epoch in the version requires:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
I think we should add isa tag as:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_and_.25.7B_isa.7D
6. Sort BR like in alphabetical order:
BuildRequires: expect
BuildRequires: libltdl-devel
BuildRequires: gdbm-devel
BuildRequires: openldap-devel
BuildRequires: pam-devel
BuildRequires: mysql-devel
BuildRequires: postgresql-devel
BuildRequires: sqlite3-devel
7. Why this?
MAKEFLAGS= make -j 1 install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
MAKEFLAGS= make -j 1 install-configure DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Why can't use parallel make?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
8. All install should be with -p option to preserve the timestamps.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
9. The authenumerate.8 page comes from Debian, but do you think it's helpful?
http://sources.debian.net/data/main/c/courier-authlib/0.63.0-6/debian/authenumerate.pod
(pod2man convert is needed if you really want to build from 'source')
10. %changelog:
-New initial RPM release heavily based on source spec file and the below
changes
We can see others keeping a good style, so you can leave a space after "-"
11. Other distros have -authdaemon subpackage, would you like keep the same
style with them?
12. configure should be with --disable-static
13. mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}
install -m 555 %{name}.sysvinit $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}
First, you should use %doc to mark it as doc, avoid installing them directly.
Second, do we need this under systemd? Any substitution avail?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009967] Review Request: golang-googlecode-net - Supplementary Go networking libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009967 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- golang-googlecode-net-0-0.8.hg84a4013f96e0.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-net-0-0.8.hg84a4013f96e0.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 914788] Review Request: mingw-libtool - The GNU Portable Library Tool for MinGW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914788
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz
--- Comment #4 from František Dvořák ---
I can confirm, even the mingw32 and mingw64 libtool scripts are very different
(program-prefix, gcc internal paths, and other differences...).
Some comments:
1) There is a trick in the native libtool: to require specific version of gcc.
The similar way could be used here for mingw32-gcc/mingw64-gcc:
%global gcc_version 4.8.1
# /usr/bin/libtool includes paths within gcc's versioned directories
# Libtool must be rebuilt whenever a new upstream gcc is built
Requires: gcc = %{gcc_version}
2) It could be useful to add mingw32-gcc-c++ (and mingw64-gcc-c++) build
dependency, otherwise the CXX part is strange (using native g++).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016221] Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016221 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW), |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |485401 (KyaPanel), 514105 | |(courier-imap) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485401 [Bug 485401] Review Request: KyaPanel - Servers Manager The easy way to admin Postfix and Samba Servers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 [Bug 514105] Review Request: courier-imap - The Courier IMAP server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016221] Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016221 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW), ||485401 (KyaPanel), 514105 ||(courier-imap) CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 486570 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485401 [Bug 485401] Review Request: KyaPanel - Servers Manager The easy way to admin Postfix and Samba Servers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105 [Bug 514105] Review Request: courier-imap - The Courier IMAP server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928609] Review Request: xpra - screen for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928609 --- Comment #27 from T.C. Hollingsworth --- Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/xpra/xpra.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/xpra/xpra-0.10.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6033594 * Mon Oct 07 2013 T.C. Hollingsworth - 0.10.4-1 - rebase to 0.10.4 - don't ship webm stuff that doesn't work without ffmpeg anyway -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016294] Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294 --- Comment #5 from Timothy St. Clair --- Issue filed upstream and tracking: https://github.com/magro/kryo-serializers/issues/16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016294] Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294 --- Comment #4 from Timothy St. Clair --- Issue files upstream and tracking: https://github.com/magro/kryo-serializers/issues/16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014848] Review Request: python-mandrill - A CLI client and API library for Mandrill email service.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014848 Yohan Graterol changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||yohangratero...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yohangratero...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Yohan Graterol --- Hello Daniel, 1 - Please add the LICENSE's file. 2 - Specific the folders or files on the python sitelib folder. 3 - You skipped a dependency python-ujson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #10 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- There is an error in sourceforge web interface , you can get it through mirrors : http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/sourceforge/o/oj/oji/srpms/almohawell-9.3.1-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015765] Review Request: islamic-menus - Islamic menus for desktops conforming with xdg standards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015765 --- Comment #4 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- There is an error in sourceforge web interface , you can get it through mirrors : http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/sourceforge/o/oj/oji/srpms/islamic-menus-1.0.5-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016294] Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016294] Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- Created attachment 809018 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=809018&action=edit review notes This is a problem: src/test/java/de/javakaffee/kryoserializers/cglib/CustomClassLoader.java [!]: 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1016294-kryo- serializers/licensecheck.txt [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. reports this * $Id$ * (c) Copyright 2009 freiheit.com technologies GmbH * * Created on Jun 25, 2010 by Martin Grotzke (martin.grot...@freiheit.com) * * This file contains unpublished, proprietary trade secret information of * freiheit.com technologies GmbH. Use, transcription, duplication and * modification are strictly prohibited without prior written consent of * freiheit.com technologies GmbH. please, remove form taraball, also before import in SCM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015765] Review Request: islamic-menus - Islamic menus for desktops conforming with xdg standards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015765 --- Comment #3 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- Ok, rewritten: Spec : http://helallinux.com/paste/show.php?id=1241&mode=raw SRPM : http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/oji/srpms/islamic-menus-1.0.5-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016294] Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- i would like to take this review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016294] Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294
--- Comment #1 from Timothy St. Clair ---
Here are my notes, please comment if you find an issue.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tstclair/work/spaces/tachyon
/kryo-serializers-rpm/review-kryo-serializers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires
[Bug 1016294] Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294 Timothy St. Clair changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it, ||tstcl...@redhat.com Blocks||1010003 (bigdata-review) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010003 [Bug 1010003] bigdata-sig review-tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016294] New: Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016294 Bug ID: 1016294 Summary: Review Request: kryo-serializers - Additional kryo for standard JDK types Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tstcl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/kryo-serializers/kryo-serializers.spec SRPM URL: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/kryo-serializers/kryo-serializers-0.23-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Additional kryo (http://kryo.googlecode.com) serializers for standard JDK types (e.g. currency, JDK proxies) and some for external libraries (e.g. JODA TIME, CGLIB proxies). Fedora Account System Username: tstclair -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015263] Review request: lz4 Extremely fast compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- lz4-r106-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lz4-r106-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015263] Review request: lz4 Extremely fast compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- lz4-r106-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lz4-r106-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015263] Review request: lz4 Extremely fast compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- lz4-r106-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lz4-r106-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015263] Review request: lz4 Extremely fast compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- lz4-r106-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lz4-r106-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016258] Review Request: mingw-log4c - an application message logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016258 František Dvořák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org Depends On||467260 ||(mingw32-filesystem), ||454410 (mingw32-gcc), ||454408 (mingw32-binutils), ||489353 (mingw32-expat) Alias||mingw-log4c Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454408 [Bug 454408] Review Request: mingw32-binutils - MinGW Windows binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410 [Bug 454410] Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467260 [Bug 467260] Review Request: mingw32-filesystem - MinGW base filesystem and environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489353 [Bug 489353] Review Request: mingw32-expat - MinGW port of expat XML parser library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016258] New: Review Request: mingw-log4c - an application message logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016258 Bug ID: 1016258 Summary: Review Request: mingw-log4c - an application message logging library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-log4c-1.2.4-1/mingw-log4c.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-log4c-1.2.4-1/mingw-log4c-1.2.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Log4c is a C language library for flexible logging to files, syslog and other destinations. It is modeled after the Log for Java library (log4j), staying as close to their API as is reasonable. Fedora Account System Username: valtri Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6033040 Rpmlint output: mingw-log4c.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog mingw32-log4c-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-log4c.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog mingw64-log4c-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-log4c.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syslog -> slog 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #9 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- Fixing release line. ( Is this important ? ) Spec : http://helallinux.com/paste/show.php?id=1240&mode=raw SRPM : http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/oji/srpms/almohawell-9.3.1-2.fc19.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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858027] Review Request: jquery-ui - JavaScript library of interface components based on jQuery
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858027 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||603937 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603937 [Bug 603937] ipython bundles libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 857992] Review Request: JQuery - Fast, concise library that simplifies how you use JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857992 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||603937 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603937 [Bug 603937] ipython bundles libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015263] Review request: lz4 Extremely fast compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263
--- Comment #7 from pjp ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
> %make_install PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} INSTALL="install -p"
Done.
> And you should tell upstream about the bad PREFIX option.
bad..?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016221] New: Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016221 Bug ID: 1016221 Summary: Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: v...@flippedperspective.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedorapkgs.flippedperspective.com/SPECS/courier-authlib.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapkgs.flippedperspective.com/SRPMS/courier-authlib-0.66.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications. Fedora Account System Username: viz Notes: This is my first package, so I need a sponsor When I ran rpmlint I saw 6 errors. One was an incorrect-fsf-address which I've already reported to upstream. The other 5 are non-readable /etc/authlib/auth*rc 0660L. I believe there are security reasons for not making these files world readable, especially for authmysqlrc, authpgsqlrc, and authldaprc, as these files contain passwords. I intend to also pick up the courier-imap package (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514105) but figured I'd do courier-authlib first, as courier-authlib is a dependency for courier-imap. Koji f19 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6030607 Koji f20 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6030575 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #8 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- Spec : http://helallinux.com/paste/show.php?id=1239&mode=raw SRPM : http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/oji/srpms/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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #7 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- OK , I taked all your notes , and now testing by koji. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016200] Review Request: (unorphan) global - Source code tag system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016200 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Zhukov --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6032750 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016200] New: Review Request: (unorphan) global - Source code tag system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016200 Bug ID: 1016200 Summary: Review Request: (unorphan) global - Source code tag system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pzhu...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/global/global.spec SRPM URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/global/global-6.2.9-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: GNU GLOBAL is a source code tag system that works the same way across diverse environments. It supports C, C++, Yacc, Java, PHP and assembler source code. Fedora Account System Username:landgraf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- enlightenment-0.17.4-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/enlightenment-0.17.4-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- enlightenment-0.17.4-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/enlightenment-0.17.4-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970285] Review Request: shiro - A powerful and flexible open-source security framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970285 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/shiro.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/shiro-1.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015942] Review Request: aj-snapshot - restore ALSA/JACK connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015942 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- aj-snapshot-0.9.6-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aj-snapshot-0.9.6-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015942] Review Request: aj-snapshot - restore ALSA/JACK connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015942 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- aj-snapshot-0.9.6-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aj-snapshot-0.9.6-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015942] Review Request: aj-snapshot - restore ALSA/JACK connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015942 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- aj-snapshot-0.9.6-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/aj-snapshot-0.9.6-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015942] Review Request: aj-snapshot - restore ALSA/JACK connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015942 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber-js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber-js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-bignumber-js-1.2.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-bignumber-js-1.2.0-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966223] Review Request: nodejs-mysql - pure node.js MySQL client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966223 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966223] Review Request: nodejs-mysql - pure node.js MySQL client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966223 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-mysql-2.0.0-alpha9.1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-mysql-2.0.0-alpha9.1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber-js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber-js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016170] New: Review Request: ncdc - A modern and lightweight direct connect client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016170 Bug ID: 1016170 Summary: Review Request: ncdc - A modern and lightweight direct connect client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cicku...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://cicku.me/ncdc.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/ncdc-1.18.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Ncdc is a modern and lightweight direct connect client with a friendly ncurses interface. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977141] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-init - Generate project scaffolding from a template
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977141
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
I'm doing this review, because it's blocking jquery, which is blocking ipython
:)
>>> After adding BuildRequires: nodejs-grunt <<<
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE-Apache-2.0 in rpm(s)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= 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.
I see MIT everywhere. I don't know why fedora-review complains about the file
with Apache license.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
(nodejs style)
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Modulo /usr/bin/env.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
Requires:/usr/bin/env should go away.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 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]: Di
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber-js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Troy Dawson --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-bignumber-js Short Description: Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic Owners: tdawson Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber-js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 --- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson --- Summary updated to match final name of package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber-js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-bignumber.js - |nodejs-bignumber-js - |Library for decimal and |Library for decimal and |non-decimal arithmetic |non-decimal arithmetic -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891170] Review Request: e_dbus - Wrappers around D-Bus for EFL based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891170 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- e_dbus-1.7.8-1.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. ___ 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 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966223] Review Request: nodejs-mysql - pure node.js MySQL client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966223 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966223] Review Request: nodejs-mysql - pure node.js MySQL client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966223 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber.js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Requested package name nodejs-bignumber-js doesn't match bug summary nodejs-bignumber.js, please correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber.js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014601] Review Request: python-cssmin - A Python port of the YUI CSS compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014601 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Oh, python3 support is not as simple as adding python3-devel :) It turns out that a there was one extra commit post 0.1.4, which fixes a Python 3 import issue. I made the necessary changes to the spec file, available from http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-cssmin.spec. If you don't want to deal with Python 3 issues, I'd be happy to become a co-maintaner responsible for that part. Before this package is approved, I'd like to see one more change: please add one sentence explanation what the package does to the summary (summaries now), so that a person not familiar with the subject can grasp what the package is. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966223] Review Request: nodejs-mysql - pure node.js MySQL client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966223 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-mysql Short Description: pure node.js MySQL client Owners: tdawson Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 965895] Review Request: nodejs-node-static - Simple, compliant file streaming module for node
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965895 Marek Mahut changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mma...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mma...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber.js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber.js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 --- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-bignumber-js Short Description: Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic Owners: tdawson Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1012696] Review Request: opari2 - An OpenMP runtime performance measurement instrumenter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012696 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: opari2 -|Review Request: opari2 - An |OpenMP runtime measurement |OpenMP runtime performance |instrumenter|measurement instrumenter --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski --- Sure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 --- Comment #21 from Dan Mashal --- @Limb Please also fix for Rawhide if you can. I'll file a releng ticket anyway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1012696] Review Request: opari2 - OpenMP runtime measurement instrumenter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012696 --- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #2) > How's this? Otherwise, no idea what to use. Well, now the summary is a lot better. To me plain 'instrumentation' is a bit vague. Maybe An OpenMP runtime performance measurement instrumenter would be even better? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015942] Review Request: aj-snapshot - restore ALSA/JACK connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015942 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966223] Review Request: nodejs-mysql - pure node.js MySQL client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966223 Marek Mahut changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Marek Mahut --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6031388 This package looks good too Troy, approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015942] Review Request: aj-snapshot - restore ALSA/JACK connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015942 --- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber.js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 Marek Mahut changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marek Mahut --- Discussed the dot over IRC. Thank you Troy, looks good! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014601] Review Request: python-cssmin - A Python port of the YUI CSS compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014601 --- Comment #2 from Martin Krizek --- Thanks for the review! Updated spec file and srpm follow: Spec URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/python-cssmin.spec SRPM URL: http://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/python-cssmin-0.1.4-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977122] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-cli - The grunt command-line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977122
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
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.
(MIT)
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
bash-completion issue described below.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Some notes below.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
(nodejs style)
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Notes below.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 1014619] Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014619 --- Comment #20 from Dan Mashal --- Package Change Request == Package Name: enlightenment New Branches: f19 f20 Owners: vicodan sundaram spot -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter --- re: comment #7 There will (likely) never be a Qt5-based qt-devel pkg. IMO, better to specify exactly what you want, so you know what you're getting and there are no surprises. To depend on Qt5, you can use (something like) one of the following: BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-devel or BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5Core) The Qt4 versions of those being: BuildRequires: qt4-devel or BuildRequires: pkgconfig(QtCore) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015942] Review Request: aj-snapshot - restore ALSA/JACK connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015942 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones --- Fantastic - thanks for the review! Will change before import. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aj-snapshot Short Description: restore ALSA/JACK connections Owners: bsjones Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 966222] Review Request: nodejs-bignumber.js - Library for decimal and non-decimal arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966222 --- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/nodejs-bignumber-js.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/ nodejs-bignumber-js-1.2.0-2.fc20.src.rpm - Renamed to conform to Fedora naming guidelines -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators - Checked to make sure it still provides npm(bignumber.js) -- This maintains compatibility with other scripts that depend on it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Oh, I forgot about one thing: I think that Summary/%description should be changed to say something like "JavaScript Library to run tasks"/"Grunt is a JavaScript library to run tasks". The package is not usable directly, and the description is rather opaque for people who don't know anything about nodejs and this specific package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
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.
(MIT)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/zbyszek/fedora/977128-nodejs-grunt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
(nodejs library/extension)
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
Follows nodejs packaging guidelines, afaict.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
(Tests require a circular dependency, so cannot be turned on currently.)
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arch
[Bug 920039] Review Request: atmosphere - Realtime Client Server Framework for the JVM, supporting WebSockets and Cross-Browser Fallbacks Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920039 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- available atmosphere 2.0.2, please, consider upgrade -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6031073 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960720] Review Request: jspc - Maven plugin for JSP compilation using Jasper (and Glassfish)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960720 Matthew Farrellee changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1010003 (bigdata-review) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010003 [Bug 1010003] bigdata-sig review-tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016089] Review Request: aprsdigi - AX.25 Automatic Position Reporting System aprsdigi and aprsmon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016089 --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw --- Corrected SRPM Link: Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/aprsdigi.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/aprsdigi-3.5.1-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960720] Review Request: jspc - Maven plugin for JSP compilation using Jasper (and Glassfish)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960720 Pete MacKinnon changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|985087 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985087 [Bug 985087] Review Request: hadoop - A software platform for processing vast amounts of data -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016089] New: Review Request: aprsdigi - AX.25 Automatic Position Reporting System aprsdigi and aprsmon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016089 Bug ID: 1016089 Summary: Review Request: aprsdigi - AX.25 Automatic Position Reporting System aprsdigi and aprsmon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hobbes1...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//aprsdigi.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//aprsdigi-3.5.1.tar.gz Description: Aprsdigi is a specialized Amateur Packet Radio (AX.25) UI-frame digipeater for the Automatic Position Reporting System, APRS(tm). Aprsmon collects and displays standard AX.25 UI text frames in a format similar to that output by a standard TNC in "Monitor ON" mode and is intended to be used with programs like javAPRS which wish to see a TNC data stream over a TCP connection. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977122] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-cli - The grunt command-line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977122 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013374] Review Request: mariadb-mroonga - A fast fulltext searchable storage engine for MariaDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013374 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- You should mark doc package as noarch, same to bug 1013375 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- Yes, I've seen that. But it seems I forgot to paste another part of my comment: - And do not write something like thanks/credits and license information in all %description(we all know all softwares are open sourced in the repo). - Besides I tell him how to write actually, he may understand it now. And I don't think it's a big problem unless you disagree, would you like to waste another new comment? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
