[Bug 1018546] New: Review Request: musepack-libmpc - Living audio compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546
Bug ID: 1018546
Summary: Review Request: musepack-libmpc - Living audio
compression
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/musepack-libmpc/musepack-libmpc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/musepack-libmpc/musepack-libmpc-1.3.0-0.1.svn475.fc21.src.rpm
Description:
Musepack is an audio compression format with a strong emphasis on high quality.
It's not lossless, but it is designed for transparency, so that you won't be
able to hear differences between the original wave file and the much smaller
MPC file.
It is based on the MPEG-1 Layer-2 / MP2 algorithms, but since 1997 it has
rapidly developed and vastly improved and is now at an advanced stage in which
it contains heavily optimized and patentless code.
Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
rpmlint errors:
[asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm
libmpcdec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Musepack - Muse pack,
Muse-pack, Mudpack
libmpcdec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Musepack - Muse
pack, Muse-pack, Mudpack
libmpcdec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpcdec
libmpcdec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Musepack - Muse pack,
Muse-pack, Mudpack
libmpcdec-devel.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libmpcdec.so libmpcdec.so
libmpcdec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
musepack-libmpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless - loss
less, loss-less, loveless
musepack-libmpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US patentless -
patent less, patent-less, pathless
musepack-libmpc.src:4: W: macro-in-comment %{actual_name}
musepack-libmpc.src:115: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
musepack-libmpc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libmpc_r475.tar.gz
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -
loss less, loss-less, loveless
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US patentless -
patent less, patent-less, pathless
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpccut
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpcenc
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpcchap
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wavcmp
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpcgain
musepack-libmpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpc2sv8
musepack-libmpc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 20 warnings.
Mailed upstream about soname versioning already.
--
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 1018541] Review Request: libreplaygain - Gain analysis library from musepack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018541 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1018546 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 [Bug 1018546] Review Request: musepack-libmpc - Living audio compression -- 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 1018546] Review Request: musepack-libmpc - Living audio compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1018544, 1018541 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018541 [Bug 1018541] Review Request: libreplaygain - Gain analysis library from musepack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018544 [Bug 1018544] Review Request: libcuefile - A stripped down version of cuetools -- 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 1018544] Review Request: libcuefile - A stripped down version of cuetools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018544 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1018546 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 [Bug 1018546] Review Request: musepack-libmpc - Living audio compression -- 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 1018546] Review Request: musepack-libmpc - Living audio compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1014468 -- 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 1005320] Review Request: openstack-puppet - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320 --- Comment #3 from Ryan O'Hara roh...@redhat.com --- The SRPM is here: http://rohara.fedorapeople.org/puppet/openstack-puppet-2013.2-1.fc18.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 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #18) OK. FYI: I've emailed Joey Hess (original author of Alien). Joey Hess has replied. He has authorized me to forward this: joeyhess@kitenet@net This is the first that I've heard of this fork almohawell clearly contains code from alien. It still has my name on it as the author. Most of the changes are branding changes. Alien is licensed under version 2 or higher of the GPL, and I have never given permission for it to be used under any other license. /joeyhess@kitenet@net -- 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 #20 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- I can't (under GPL or Waqf) remove Joey name from any fork. Almohawell contain many things Alien don't : 1- Generated RPM by Alien couldn't install under Fedora , Almohawell ones do. 2- Edit maintainer of the generating package. 3- Edit requires of the generating package. 4- Edit license of the generating package. 5- Edit group of the generating package. I talked to Waqf maintainer : He said : (30 days at least of discuss to approve Waqf at OSI) Tell that I'll release Almohawell under GPL. I sent This message and didn't have any reply : From: moc...@hotmail.com To: jo...@debian.org Subject: Patches for alien Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:09:47 +0200 Hellow Joey , maintainer of alien application . I was used alien many times , but it has abig problem that I can't add depends manually . So Almasa-alien has been written , which contain alien with some changes . These changes allow to add depends to generated packages by alien . Almasa alien sourse contain patches : http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/Kenzy:/packages/Fedora_17/src/almasa-alien-8.88-5.1.src.rpm Main discuss : http://www.linuxac.org/forum/threads/61834 -- 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 1018568] New: Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Bug ID: 1018568 Summary: Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: anto.tra...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm-5.1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Basic library functionality for Rodent applications. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter -- 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 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1018568 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent-5.1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Update to 5.1.3 . In this release all primary libraries (librfm) are split off into their own package. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 [Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality -- 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 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1016809 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 [Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems -- 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 1018393] Review Request: lv2-artyfx-plugins - a collection of LV2 audio plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018393
Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
License file is missing.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or
generated. 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1018393-lv2-artyfx-
plugins/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
There is a new commit:
[Bug 821455] Review Request: python-trml2pdf12 - Tiny RML2PDF is a tool to easily create PDF documents without programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821455 --- Comment #13 from Cristian Ciupitu cristian.ciup...@yahoo.com --- I've fixed the issues. Please note, that this package is a rename, so this section should be checked: [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Maybe I should add a comment in the SPEC or something. SPEC: https://raw.github.com/ciupicri/rpmbuild/python-trml2pdf12/SPECS/python-trml2pdf12.spec SRC.RPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4580/6054580/python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc20.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6054579 -- 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 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||mgans...@alice.de Flags||needinfo?(mgans...@alice.de ||) --- Comment #54 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Hi, I'd like to see this nice player getting into Fedora. Can you update the svn version to the latest and push a new package to here, I'd like tpo help review if possible. BTW its homepage is: http://guayadeque.org/, not sf.net page. Please change. -- 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 1018544] Review Request: libcuefile - A stripped down version of cuetools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018544
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #0)
%{name} is a stripped down version of the original cuetools library. This is
used by the musepack tools.
Why can't musepack use libcue? From what I can gather from a brief glance,
libcuefile is mostly API compatible to libcue.
--
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 1018588] New: Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588 Bug ID: 1018588 Summary: Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sso...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://simo.fedorapeople.org/gssntlmssp.spec SRPM URL: http://simo.fedorapeople.org/gssntlmssp-0.1.0-0.fc19.src.rpm Description: A GSSAPI Mechanism that implements NTLMSSP Fedora Account System Username: simo -- 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 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Just a few initial comments: ## Remove static libs find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -delete This command deletes libtool archives, not static libs. This does the configure switch --enable-static=no. BuildRequires: tubo-devel isn't available for Fedora yet and needs to be packaged first. Requires:glib2 = 2.22.5 Requires:gtk2 = 2.18.9 Requires:libxml2 = 2.4.0 Requires:cairo = 1.8.8 Explicite requirements are not needed in this case. As long as you have the minimum versions in BuildRequires, it cannot happen that the resulting binary package gets lower dependencies. BTW, official Fedora packages don't have an universal approach. You don't have to make sure that anyone will be satisfied who fetches this package from anywhere. It is for a certain Fedora release, no more than that. Moreover, you could shrink BuildRequires a bit. An explicite version of gtk is unneeded, because EPEL 6 ships gtk-2.14 which is insufficient. All currently supported Fedora versions have at least gtk-2.24. Gtk2 needs Glib2 anyway, so you can drop it completely. The same is for libxml2 (f18: 2.9.0), file (f18: 5.11) and so on. Keep the legibility of your spec file in mind. Requiring a minimum version doesn't make sense if all current Fedora versions have it anyway and the package can't be built in EPEL. BuildRequires:dbh-devel = 5.0.6 Well, there's such a package in Fedora, but mostly v1.0.24. Only Rawhide has the required version, so it won't be possible to get it in Fedora = 21 unless dbh-devel gets backported. This makes all of your minimum version requirements senseless. -- 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 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-10-13 13:10:39 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Built on all branches, push requested for F-20 and below, closing. Thank you for review and git procedure. -- 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 996042] Review Request: tinyxml2 - Simple, small and efficient C++ XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996042 Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- I need the EL branches for cppcheck. Comaintainers welcome. Package Change Request == Package Name: pkgname New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: jussilehtola -- 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 996042] Review Request: tinyxml2 - Simple, small and efficient C++ XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996042 --- Comment #19 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- Damn, too quick cut'n'paste. Package Change Request == Package Name: tinyxml2 New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: jussilehtola -- 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 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1018568 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 [Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality -- 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 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1016807 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807 [Bug 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child -- 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 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Hi Mario. (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1) Just a few initial comments: ## Remove static libs find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -delete This command deletes libtool archives, not static libs. This does the configure switch --enable-static=no. Okay. BuildRequires: tubo-devel isn't available for Fedora yet and needs to be packaged first. I'm aware of that. Requires: glib2 = 2.22.5 Requires: gtk2 = 2.18.9 Requires: libxml2 = 2.4.0 Requires: cairo = 1.8.8 Explicite requirements are not needed in this case. As long as you have the minimum versions in BuildRequires, it cannot happen that the resulting binary package gets lower dependencies. BTW, official Fedora packages don't have an universal approach. You don't have to make sure that anyone will be satisfied who fetches this package from anywhere. It is for a certain Fedora release, no more than that. Moreover, you could shrink BuildRequires a bit. An explicite version of gtk is unneeded, because EPEL 6 ships gtk-2.14 which is insufficient. All currently supported Fedora versions have at least gtk-2.24. Gtk2 needs Glib2 anyway, so you can drop it completely. The same is for libxml2 (f18: 2.9.0), file (f18: 5.11) and so on. Keep the legibility of your spec file in mind. Requiring a minimum version doesn't make sense if all current Fedora versions have it anyway and the package can't be built in EPEL. Thank you for this analysis. In fact the list of BuildRequires and Requires packages is an heritage from upstream's spec file but that I have not studied as I should have had to do. BuildRequires:dbh-devel = 5.0.6 Well, there's such a package in Fedora, but mostly v1.0.24. Only Rawhide has the required version, so it won't be possible to get it in Fedora = 21 unless dbh-devel gets backported. This makes all of your minimum version requirements senseless. I like to bring forward these reviews in advance. :) Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librfm/librfm-5.1.3-2.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 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent-5.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm BuildRequires/Requires reduction. -- 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 1008059] Review Request: xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin - An alternate application launcher for Xfce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008059 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin-1.1.1-1.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 821455] Review Request: python-trml2pdf12 - Tiny RML2PDF is a tool to easily create PDF documents without programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821455
Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for pointing out the renaming issue, which obviously I overlooked in the
above review, even though we discussed it before. Sorry about that.
The most recent version in rawhide of the python-trml2pdf package is 1.2.9.
(see https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-trml2pdf)
As is detailed in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/171#comment:5 this
package will be renamed to python-trml2pdf12 without changing it's content, to
allow a possible creation of a subpackage by the openERP maintainer.
Therefore it should provide proper Obsoletes and Provides in the spec file.
Looking at the lines:
Provides: python-trml2pdf = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: python-trml2pdf = 1.2-9
and reading the rules in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
this seems correct to me.
Retesting the new srpm in mock the results seem just fine to me. Rerunning the
fedora-review tool gives similar results to the review above. The rpmlint
results do no longer complain about the spelling issue as expected:
Checking: python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc21.noarch.rpm
python-trml2pdf12-1.2-13.fc21.src.rpm
python-trml2pdf12.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf12/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
This error was discussed as well above, and since there is no upstream for this
old source code I will not ask you to patch this address.
So looking at all this, I am happy with the result and this package is
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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #6 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tinyca2/tinyca2.spec SRPM URL:ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/tinyca2/tinyca2-0.7.6-0.9.20070611.fc19.src.rpm * Sun Oct 13 2013 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com - 0.7.6-0.10.20070611 - Filter out bogus Requires/Provides - clean some EL5 leftover items It's now: Provides: config(tinyca2) = 0.7.6-0.10.20070611.fc19 perl(CA) tinyca = 0.7.6-0.10.20070611.fc19 tinyca2 = 0.7.6-0.10.20070611.fc19 Requires: /usr/bin/perl perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Gtk2) perl(Gtk2::SimpleMenu) perl(IO::Select) perl(IPC::Open3) perl(Locale::gettext) perl(MIME::Base64) perl(OpenSSL) perl(Time::Local) -- 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 1018626] New: Review Request: libfaketime - Manipulate system time per process for testing purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626 Bug ID: 1018626 Summary: Review Request: libfaketime - Manipulate system time per process for testing purposes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pwout...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/libfaketime/libfaketime.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/libfaketime/libfaketime-0.9.5-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: libfaketime intercepts various system calls which programs use to retrieve the current date and time. It can then report faked dates and times (as specified by you, the user) to these programs. This means you can modify the system time a program sees without having to change the time system- wide. Fedora Account System Username: pwouters -- 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 1018626] Review Request: libfaketime - Manipulate system time per process for testing purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@redhat.com -- 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 1018544] Review Request: libcuefile - A stripped down version of cuetools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018544
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
||/show_bug.cgi?id=1018449
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #1)
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #0)
%{name} is a stripped down version of the original cuetools library. This is
used by the musepack tools.
Why can't musepack use libcue? From what I can gather from a brief glance,
libcuefile is mostly API compatible to libcue.
I've mailed upstream asking them to clarify how libcuefile is different from
the library that cuetools provides. I'm not sure 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Looks fine to me, and all points indicated are fixed. 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 1018626] Review Request: libfaketime - Manipulate system time per process for testing purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
Two primary notices:
1. You don't need the %ifarch x86_64, %{_lib} (and as a result %{_libdir}) are
already lib on i686, and lib64 on x86_64.
2. This package compiles on x86_64 but not on i686??? Source:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6056725
--
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 969718] Review Request: pbuilder - Personal package builder for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969718 --- Comment #22 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #21) SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-4.fc21.src.rpm * Thu Oct 10 2013 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com - 0.215-4 - Improve README.fedora - Add some missing requires ERROR: 'mock build failed, see /home/sergio/rpmbuild/969718-pbuilder/results/build.log' error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B90lintian /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B90list-missing /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B91debc /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B91dpkg-i /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B92test-pkg /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/C10shell /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/C11screen /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D10tmp /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D20addnonfree /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D65various-compiler-support /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D80no-man-db-rebuild /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/D90chrootmemo /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/F90chrootmemo /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/execute_installtest.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/execute_paramtest.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/README /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/STRATEGY /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lib/lvmbuilder-checkparams /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lib/lvmbuilder-modules /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lib/lvmbuilder-unimplemented /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/lvmpbuilder/lvmbuilder /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuildd/buildd.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuildd/hookdir/A10dpkg-l.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/000_prepinstall /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/001_apprun /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/002_libfile /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/002_sample.c /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/003_makecheck /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/004_ldd /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-test/README /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilderrc /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/rebuild/README /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/rebuild/buildall /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/rebuild/getlist /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.de.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.fr.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.ja.html /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/pbuilder-doc.pdf -- 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 1018626] Review Request: libfaketime - Manipulate system time per process for testing purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626 --- Comment #3 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- odd + CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-strict-aliasing' + make -j16 PREFIX=/usr LIBDIRNAME=/lib/faketime all cc -o libfaketime.o -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -DFAKE_STAT -DFAKE_SLEEP -DFAKE_TIMERS -DFAKE_INTERNAL_CALLS -fPIC -DPREFIX=''/usr'' -DLIBDIRNAME=''/lib/faketime'' libfaketime.c cc -o libfaketimeMT.o -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -DFAKE_STAT -DFAKE_SLEEP -DFAKE_TIMERS -DFAKE_INTERNAL_CALLS -fPIC -DPREFIX=''/usr'' -DLIBDIRNAME=''/lib/faketime'' libfaketime.c cc -o faketime -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -DFAKE_STAT -DFAKE_SLEEP -DFAKE_TIMERS -DFAKE_INTERNAL_CALLS -fPIC -DPREFIX=''/usr'' -DLIBDIRNAME=''/lib/faketime'' faketime.c -Wl,--version-script=libfaketime.map -lrt -ldl -lm -lpthread -lrt cc -o libfaketime.so.1 -Wl,-soname,libfaketime.so.1 -Wl,--version-script=libfaketime.map -lrt -shared libfaketime.o -ldl -lm -lpthread -lrt cc -o libfaketimeMT.so.1 -Wl,-soname,libfaketimeMT.so.1 -Wl,--version-script=libfaketime.map -lrt -shared libfaketimeMT.o -ldl -lm -lpthread -lrt libfaketime.o: In function `ft_cleanup': /builddir/build/BUILD/libfaketime-0.9.5/src/libfaketime.c:1275: multiple definition of `timer_gettime' /builddir/build/BUILD/libfaketime-0.9.5/src/libfaketime.c:1275: multiple definition of `timer_settime' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [libfaketime.so.1] Error 1 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs libfaketimeMT.o: In function `ft_cleanup': /builddir/build/BUILD/libfaketime-0.9.5/src/libfaketime.c:1275: multiple definition of `timer_gettime' /builddir/build/BUILD/libfaketime-0.9.5/src/libfaketime.c:1275: multiple definition of `timer_settime' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [libfaketimeMT.so.1] Error 1 RPM build errors: I don't see that on x86_64. Will investigate -- 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 969718] Review Request: pbuilder - Personal package builder for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969718 --- Comment #23 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Please build for f20+, pbuilder won't be packaged for any older Fedora since devscripts is f20+. -- 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 969718] Review Request: pbuilder - Personal package builder for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969718 --- Comment #24 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6056732 -- 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 969718] Review Request: pbuilder - Personal package builder for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969718 --- Comment #25 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com --- Created attachment 811836 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=811836action=edit pbuilder.spec.patch (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #23) Please build for f20+, pbuilder won't be packaged for any older Fedora since devscripts is f20+. OK I'm check it ... (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1 of bug 1017732) By the way: since I maintain a number of other debian related packages, I'm happy to comaintain this one too if desired. Lets begin by pbuilder , your spec is very good, but I'd like to join some knowledge of the spec Oron, with your spec. uml subpackage and more and better comments and descriptions . Since Oron is unresponsive since July , we need other review request , do you want do it ? I send the patch -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tinyca2 Short Description: TinyCA2 is a graphical tool written in Perl/Gtk to manage a small Certification Authority (CA) using openssl. TinyCA supports - creation and revocation of x509 - S/MIME certificates. - PKCS#10 requests. - exporting certificates as PEM, DER, TXT, and PKCS#12. - server certificates for use in web servers, email servers, IPsec, and more. - client certificates for use in web browsers, email clients, IPsec, and more. - creation and management of SubCAs Owners: pwouters Branches: f20 f19 f18 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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Homepage 404. -- 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 969718] Review Request: pbuilder - Personal package builder for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969718
--- Comment #26 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #21)
SPEC: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder.spec
SRPM: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/pbuilder-0.215-4.fc21.src.rpm
* Thu Oct 10 2013 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com - 0.215-4
- Improve README.fedora
- Add some missing requires
fedora-review -b 969718 , works now !
we only have minor rpmlint errors and warnings but it can be fixed .
pbuilder.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pbuilder
replace with %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/pbuilder please
pbuilder.src:97: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/pbuilder/
pbuilder.src:112: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pbuilder/pbuilder-uml-checkparams
pbuilder.src:113: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/pbuilder/pdebuild-uml-checkparams
we can't use %{_libdir}, mailman package use %global mmdir /usr/lib/%{name}
so we can use:
%global pbdir /usr/lib/%{name}
%{pbdir}/pbuilder-uml-checkparams
%{pbdir}/pdebuild-uml-checkparams
--
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 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - TuxCut is a netcut in windows os like software written in PyQt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- The Short description field here should basically match the Summary: field in the .spec file and Subject of this review. For example, Short Description: TinyCA graphical openssl based CA (though IMO, repeating the pkg name TinyCA here is redundant) -- 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 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 --- Comment #12 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com --- Parag, I want know when is the license file? Can you provide the license from upstream? The review is ok, but I need ask you about of license file. -- 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 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 --- Comment #13 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- When upstream does not provide license of the project in its own text file then we can see inside source files as well as upstream url. 1) $otfinfo -i Caladea-*.ttf | grep License Caladea-BoldItalic.ttf:License URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Caladea-BoldItalic.ttf:License Description: Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 Caladea-Bold.ttf:License URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Caladea-Bold.ttf:License Description: Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 Caladea-Italic.ttf:License URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Caladea-Italic.ttf:License Description: Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 Caladea-Regular.ttf:License URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Caladea-Regular.ttf:License Description: Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 2) Upstream URL http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=168879 but there is no mention of license but if you see the Carlito font URL http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=280557 then there you will find the text Carlito is licensed under OFL 1.1 and cannot be bundled into the crosextrafonts package with Caladea licensed under Apache. So using both above references one can conclude license for this Caladea font is ASL 2.0 -- 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 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766
--- Comment #14 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com ---
Of course, perfect.
Don't worry for the warnings.
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.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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 (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.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to
[Bug 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 --- Comment #15 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the 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 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts Short Description: Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font Owners: pnemade Branches: f20 f19 InitialCC: fonts-sig i18n-team -- 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 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 --- Comment #16 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com --- You're welcome! :) -- 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
