[Bug 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Thank you, Antonio! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eyesight Short Description: Hawaii desktop image viewer Owners: lkundrak cicku Branches: f18 f19 f20 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 1019603] New: Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603 Bug ID: 1019603 Summary: Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mimi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://miminar.fedorapeople.org/openlmi-scripts.spec SRPM URL: http://miminar.fedorapeople.org/openlmi-scripts-0.2.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Client-side python modules and command line utilities. Fedora Account System Username: miminar -- 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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@redhat.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- OK, I will sponsor Xavier. The review looks good in general. I'd only suggest to change the first line to match https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - a new and (perhaps) interesting sqlalchemy+twisted integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Will do a review later, when issues are fixed -- 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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - (SQLAlchemy - ORM) + Twisted = win
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-alchimia - a new and |python-alchimia - |(perhaps) interesting |(SQLAlchemy - ORM) + |sqlalchemy+twisted |Twisted = win |integration | -- 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 1019630] New: Review Request: perl-Perl6-Caller - Object-oriented caller() interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019630 Bug ID: 1019630 Summary: Review Request: perl-Perl6-Caller - Object-oriented caller() interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl6-Caller/perl-Perl6-Caller.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Perl6-Caller/perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This module exports the caller function. This automatically returns a new caller object. An optional argument specifies how many stack frames back to skip, just like the CORE::caller function. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- 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 1019630] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Caller - Object-oriented caller() interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019630 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-10-16 03:47:25 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 998434 *** -- 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 1013485] Re-Review Request: mod_scgi - Python implementation of the SCGI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013485 Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.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 996311] Review Request: perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read and Write STL (STereoLithography) format files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996311 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 1002704] Review Request: boilerpipe - Boilerplate Removal and Fulltext Extraction from HTML pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002704 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1019650 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650 [Bug 1019650] tika: Add parsers module -- 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 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1019650 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650 [Bug 1019650] tika: Add parsers module -- 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 1017645] Review Request: hibernate-search - Hibernate Search
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017645 Bug 1017645 depends on bug 1002721, which changed state. Bug 1002721 Summary: Review Request: tika - A content analysis toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002721 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1002706] Review Request: felix-scr-annotations - Annotations for SCR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002706 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Blocks||1019650 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650 [Bug 1019650] tika: Add parsers module -- 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 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1019650 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650 [Bug 1019650] tika: Add parsers module -- 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 1004563] Review Request: metadata-extractor2 - Extracts EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata from image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Blocks||1019650 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650 [Bug 1019650] tika: Add parsers module -- 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 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1002721 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002721 [Bug 1002721] Review Request: tika - A content analysis toolkit -- 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 1002704] Review Request: boilerpipe - Boilerplate Removal and Fulltext Extraction from HTML pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002704 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1002721 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002721 [Bug 1002721] Review Request: tika - A content analysis toolkit -- 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 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1002721 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002721 [Bug 1002721] Review Request: tika - A content analysis toolkit -- 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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341 Xavier Queralt xquer...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Xavier Queralt xquer...@redhat.com --- I've updated the spec with Matthias' suggestions: https://raw.github.com/xqueralt/python-raven/master/python-raven.spec -- 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 1009375] Review Request: ghc-hslua - Lua language interpreter embedding in Haskell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009375 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-hslua/ghc-hslua.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-hslua/ghc-hslua-0.3.6.1-2.fc19.src.rpm add static provides -- 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 996311] Review Request: perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read and Write STL (STereoLithography) format files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996311
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
URL is usable. Ok.
Source0 is usable. Ok.
Source tar ball is original (SHA-256:
a8a1e743b51e7e0b82f4575f4474b2d1e608a85286232f45c42bf4661298dc5b). Ok.
Summary verified from lib/CAD/Format/STL.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/CAD/Format/STL.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/CAD/Format/STL/part.pm and lib/CAD/Format/STL.pm. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
TODO: You can replace the `%{__perl}' macro with plain `perl'.
TODO: You can remove the deffattr macro completely, because even EPEL-5 has
rpm-4.4 where the macro is redundant.
TODO: META.yml declares minimal Module::Build version 0.35. Make sure your
package builds in EPEL-5 or add this constrain to the corresponding
BuildRequire tag.
FIX: Remove `v' from `perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3' dependency
declarations. See what perl-Class-Accessor-Classy package provides and how RPM
compares the versions (rpmdev-vercmp v0.1.3 0).
TODO: Build-require `perl(bytes)' (lib/CAD/Format/STL.pm:421).
version module is optional for tests. Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-CAD-Format-STL.spec
../SRPMS/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-3.fc21.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/doc/perl-CAD-Format-STL
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 267 Apr 5 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-CAD-Format-STL/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 286 Apr 5 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-CAD-Format-STL/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 5 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-CAD-Format-STL/files
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1417 Apr 5 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-CAD-Format-STL/files/cube.stl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 684 Apr 5 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-CAD-Format-STL/files/cube_binary.stl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3342 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/man/man3/CAD::Format::STL.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2544 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/man/man3/CAD::Format::STL::part.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/CAD
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/CAD/Format
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/CAD/Format/STL
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot11740 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/CAD/Format/STL.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2297 Oct 16 10:35
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/CAD/Format/STL/part.pm
File location and permissions are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort -i | uniq -c
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1)
1 perl(CAD::Format::STL::part)
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(Class::Accessor::Classy)
1 perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(warnings)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
FIX: Remove `v' from `perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3' dependency
declarations.
TODO: Filter the under-specified dependency `perl(Class::Accessor::Classy)'.
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering.
TODO: Run-require `perl(bytes)' (lib/CAD/Format/STL.pm:421).
$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort -i | uniq -c
1 perl(CAD::Format::STL) = 0.2.1
1 perl(CAD::Format::STL::part) = 0.2.1
1 perl-CAD-Format-STL = 0.2.1-3.fc21
Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.
Package builds in F21
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6064424). Ok.
Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Please correct all `FIX' items, consider fixing `TODO' items, and provide new
SPEC file.
Resolution: Package NOT 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 1016476] Review Request: spring-retry - Abstraction around retrying failed operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016476 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- No problem, I will add OSGi metadata. I have also opened pull request for adding ASL 2.0 license text and tests are enabled now. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: spring-retry Short Description: Abstraction around retrying failed operations Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk msimacek Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - (SQLAlchemy - ORM) + Twisted = win
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428 --- Comment #4 from Vladan Popovic vpopo...@redhat.com --- I have updated the spec file and created a new srpm for the second version. They can be found here: - https://github.com/vladan/python-alchimia-rpm/raw/master/python-alchimia.spec - https://github.com/vladan/python-alchimia-rpm/raw/master/python-alchimia-0.4-2.fc19.src.rpm Thanks for all the comments everybody! -- 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 1018090] Review Request: python-argcomplete - Bash tab completion for argparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018090 Dale Macartney dbmacart...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Dale Macartney dbmacart...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-argcomplete New Branches: F-20 Owners: dbmacartney -- 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-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320 --- Comment #12 from Ryan O'Hara roh...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #7) This should be called openstack-puppet-modules rather than just openstack-puppet I think? The former component is already created in bz Agreed. Looks like you already made the change. I think we should also change the install path for the modules, too. -- 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 1009842] Rename Request: ghc-highlighting-kate - Sourcecode syntax highlighting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009842 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Added static provides: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-highlighting-kate/ghc-highlighting-kate.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-highlighting-kate/ghc-highlighting-kate-0.5.5-2.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 978723] Review Request: ghc-snap-server - A fast, iteratee-based, epoll-enabled web server for the Snap Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978723 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Update to latest release: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-snap-server/ghc-snap-server.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-snap-server/ghc-snap-server-0.9.3.4-1.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 1006114] Review Request: ghc-pureMD5 - Pure Haskell MD5 digest implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006114 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Add static provides Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pureMD5/ghc-pureMD5.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pureMD5/ghc-pureMD5-2.1.2.1-2.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 1005522] Review Request: ghc-mtl - Monad classes using functional dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005522 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-mtl/ghc-mtl.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-mtl/ghc-mtl-2.1.2-26.fc19.src.rpm add static provides -- 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 986641] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-js - Compile-time variable interpolation for Javascript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986641 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- 1.2 is out but I need to update shakespeare for that. -- 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 986551] Review Request: ghc-thespian - Lightweight Erlang-style actors for Haskell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986551 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Maybe good to refresh with latest cblrpm to get static provides added. -- 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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - (SQLAlchemy - ORM) + Twisted = win
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1.
Wrong:
%changelog
* Wed Oct 16 2013 Vladan Popovic vpopo...@redhat.com - 0.4-2%{?dist}
---
%changelog
* Wed Oct 16 2013 Vladan Popovic vpopo...@redhat.com - 0.4-2
2. %{__python} -- %{__python2}
%{python_sitelib}-- %{python2_sitelib}
3. DO NOT leave any macro in %changelog:
- Add files to %doc
--
- Add files to %%doc
4. You'd better BR python2-devel.
--
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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - A Python library that integrates Twisted with SqlAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-alchimia - |python-alchimia - A Python |(SQLAlchemy - ORM) +|library that integrates |Twisted = win |Twisted with SqlAlchemy -- 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 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Ping. And a thought: isn't this just like it always is when you have a tool which uses material from someone to build something else: you have to respect the original copyright owner? E. g., if you use gcc to compile some sources you might very well end up in that the compiled program is restricted one way or another and even being non-free. But this is certainly not being seen as a problem with gcc. To be frank, lpf-spotify looks similar to me - it's just that the usecase is much more restricted than that for a general tool such as a compiler. -- 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 1018057] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.6.hg61664b8425f3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.6.hg61664b8425f3.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 1018057] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.6.hg61664b8425f3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.6.hg61664b8425f3.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 1018057] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 1018057] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.6.hg61664b8425f3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.6.hg61664b8425f3.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 1018540] Review Request: golang-github-goraft-raft - A Go implementation of the Raft distributed consensus protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018540 Bug 1018540 depends on bug 1018057, which changed state. Bug 1018057 Summary: Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1018057] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-16 06:58:49 -- 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 1013485] Re-Review Request: mod_scgi - Python implementation of the SCGI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013485 --- Comment #1 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- Everything seems OK to fedora-review. I'm starting a manual review, at first glance it doesn't seem OK to me. -- 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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092 --- Comment #1 from Dale Macartney dbmacart...@gmail.com --- SPEC: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman.spec SRPM: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman-1.2.3-2.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 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
URL is usable. Ok.
Source0 is usable. Ok.
Source tar ball is original (SHA-256:
007f1cc9c5779fe9b2bacefec8535157ae647499347ffbbea931da63e793f216). Ok.
FIX: The summary is not descriptive. See README or Clui.pm for better text.
Description verified from Clui.pm. Ok.
License verified from Clui.pm, Clui/FileSelect.pm, test.pl,
examples/login_shell, examples/test_script, examples/linux_admin,
examples/audio_stuff, examples/choose. The py/test_script is not part of binary
package. Ok.
No XS code. noarch BuildArch is Ok.
TODO: Remove the BuildRoot definition and cleaning in the %install section and
remove the whole %clean section. They are not needed for Fedora.
TODO: You can replace `%{__perl}' macro with plain `perl' command.
TODO: You can replace PERL_INSTALL_ROOT argument with standard DESTDIR argument
in the %install section.
TODO: You can remove deleting empty directories in the %install section.
ExtUtils::MakeMaker does not create empty directories anymore.
FIX: Remove %defattr macro from %files section. This is not needed anymore
(since rpm-4.4).
TODO: You could package the `example' subdirectory as a documentation.
FIX: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' (Clui.pm:13).
TODO: Build-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
TODO: Build-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
The Term::ReadKey, Term::ReadLine::Gnu, Term::Size modules are recommended. Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Term-Clui.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-1.fc21.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
perl-Term-Clui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US summarised -
summarized, summarize
perl-Term-Clui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pgp - pg, pp, pep
perl-Term-Clui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcs - rs, cs, arcs
perl-Term-Clui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US summarised -
summarized, summarize
perl-Term-Clui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pgp - pg, pp,
pep
perl-Term-Clui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rcs - rs, cs,
arcs
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 12:46
/usr/share/doc/perl-Term-Clui
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3848 Jul 3 02:59
/usr/share/doc/perl-Term-Clui/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3422 Nov 10 2010
/usr/share/doc/perl-Term-Clui/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7715 Oct 16 12:46
/usr/share/man/man3/Term::Clui.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3528 Oct 16 12:46
/usr/share/man/man3/Term::Clui::FileSelect.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 12:46
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Term
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 12:46
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Term/Clui
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot55522 Jul 3 10:48
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Term/Clui.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 9843 Mar 23 2013
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Term/Clui/FileSelect.pm
File layout and permissions is Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-1.fc21.noarch.rpm |
sort -i | uniq -c
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1)
1 perl(Term::ReadKey)
1 perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu)
1 perl(Term::Size)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
TODO: Run-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
TODO: Run-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-1.fc21.noarch.rpm |
sort -i | uniq -c
1 perl(Term::Clui) = 1.68
1 perl-Term-Clui = 1.68-1.fc21
1 perl(Term::Clui::FileSelect) = 1.68
Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.
Package builds in F21
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6064821). Ok.
Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Please correct all `FIX' items, consider fixing `TODO' items, and provide new
SPEC file.
Resolution: Package NOT 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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1. %if 0%{?rhel} == 6
%global pybasever 2.6
%else
%global pybasever 2.7
%endif
%{!?pybasever: %define pybasever %(%{__python} -c import
sys;print(sys.version[0:3]))}
I don't know if you can have a look at rpm -E %python[TAB][TAB].
2. No need to write :
%{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())}
%{!?python_sitearch: %define python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1))}
python2-devel is enough. Also missing python-setuptools.
3. Remove BuildRoot:/rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%clean/%defattr(-,root,root)
4. Shouldn't ship INSTALL file.
5. %{__python}--%{__python2}
%{python_sitelib}--%{python2_sitelib}
6. Never mark manpages as %doc.
7. %config %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/
This dir is not owned by this package, please fulfill the path.
%config %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/barman
8. /var -- %_localstatedir
9. Put %pre before %changelog.
10. I never use EOF in RPM, I always use Source1,2... to add them(optional)
11. %setup -n barman-%{version} -q
Just
%setup -q is OK.
--
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 1019770] New: Review Request: lua-term - lua module for manipulating terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019770 Bug ID: 1019770 Summary: Review Request: lua-term - lua module for manipulating terminal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: george.machala+rhbugzi...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xmachal4/fedorapackages/lua-term.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xmachal4/fedorapackages/lua-term-0.02-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: lua-term is a Lua module for manipulating a terminal Fedora Account System Username: jmachala koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6064842 Hello, this is my first fedora package (I'm trying to put into practice what I learned week ago on fedora packaging workshop :) ), so I'll need a sponsor for it. It's really simple lua module so I suppose there shouldn't be any problems with it. I need it as a dependency for a software(Lmod), I'd like to package next. -- 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 881753] Review Request: springframework-batch - Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753 --- Comment #6 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5) for me it is not a problem, but the so called to make sure that users do not confuse it with the packages related to spring(rts) http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/spring.git/ i have already similar problem with hibernate packages, user confused this one with pm-hibernate (pm-utils) regards Never heard of spring RTS before. I am convinced that spring technologies are popular enough and people will not confuse spring-batch - Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing with RTS game called spring. But like I said, it's up to you. If you like springframework-batch more, then I am OK with that. -- 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 1019772] New: Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 Bug ID: 1019772 Summary: Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: yan...@declera.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-directory-thumbnailer/gnome-directory-thumbnailer.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-directory-thumbnailer/gnome-directory-thumbnailer-0.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Thumbnailer for directories based on some heuristics Fedora Account System Username: yaneti gnome-directory-thumbnailer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-directory-thumbnailer 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1019770] Review Request: lua-term - lua module for manipulating terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019770 Jiri Machala george.machala+rhbugzi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - A Python library that integrates Twisted with SqlAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428
--- Comment #6 from Vladan Popovic vpopo...@redhat.com ---
third round coming up, fixed:
__python - __python2
python_sitelib - python2_sitelib
%doc - %%doc
0.4-2%{?dist} - 0.4-2
added:
python2-devel
python-pbr
rm -f {test-,}requirements.txt in the prep section
https://github.com/vladan/python-alchimia-rpm/raw/master/python-alchimia.spec
https://github.com/vladan/python-alchimia-rpm/raw/master/python-alchimia-0.4-3.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 989416] Review Request: ghc-pipes - Compositional pipelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989416 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 989416] Review Request: ghc-pipes - Compositional pipelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989416 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/solr3/3/solr3.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/solr3/3/solr3-3.6.2-3.fc19.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6064961 Fix the self-requires issue, RHBZ#1019670 -- 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-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1005320] Review Request: openstack-puppet-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1016476] Review Request: spring-retry - Abstraction around retrying failed operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016476 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1016476] Review Request: spring-retry - Abstraction around retrying failed operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016476 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). f21 not yet branched, devel is automatic. -- 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 1018090] Review Request: python-argcomplete - Bash tab completion for argparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018090 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- Going to do 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 1018090] Review Request: python-argcomplete - Bash tab completion for argparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018090 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Oh, this is an unretirement. I've unretired devel, please submit a Package Change request for the other branches. Sorry for the extra work. -- 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 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Complete. -- 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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sgall...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-raven-3.5.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-raven-3.5.0-2.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 1019341] Review Request: python-raven - python client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019341 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092 --- Comment #3 from Dale Macartney dbmacart...@gmail.com --- Thanks Christopher, feedback is greatly appreciated. SPEC: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman.spec SRPM: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/barman/barman-1.2.3-3.fc19.src.rpm Points 8 and 9 aren't too clear though if you wouldn't mind clarifying. package builds locally with rpmbuild without error, however fails when doing a koji scratch build. sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6065150 -- 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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523 Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com 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 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6065180 -- 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 1019824] New: Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Bug ID: 1019824 Summary: Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rb...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-dopy.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-dopy-0.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Digital Ocean API Python Wrapper -- 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 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- Hi, some comments: - gnome-directory-thumbnailer has a GNOME wiki page at https://wiki.gnome.org/GnomeDirectoryThumbnailer; you should use it as URL, instead of using the GIT one. - it is recommended to use complete sentences for package descriptions. With a final dot ;). Otherwise the package looks quite good. The review will follow. -- 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 1016476] Review Request: spring-retry - Abstraction around retrying failed operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016476 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-16 09:23:50 --- Comment #8 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review and the repo. The package is now available in Rawhide. -- 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 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks 0.1.0-2 - Change url Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-directory-thumbnailer/gnome-directory-thumbnailer.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/gnome-directory-thumbnailer/gnome-directory-thumbnailer-0.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm I've also put a final dot. The sentence sounds complete to me. If you have another suggestion I'll be happy to change 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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628 --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/solr3/4/solr3.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/solr3/4/solr3-3.6.2-4.fc19.src.rpm Changes: - Now using pom macros to do the changes - Slim down the src distribution -- 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 1016943] Review Request: crystal - KDE WM theme (KDE4-compatible version)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016943 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- I looked at the existing crystal package in fedora, it is indeed does already work with kde4, even though it is quite old. Let's give chitlesh at least a few more days to explicitly respond. If he does not by the weekend or early next week say, I'll be happy to sponsor you and we can get you into a comaintainer position. -- 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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1019852] New: Review Request: ultimaker2-marlin-firmware - Ultimaker2 firmware for the 3D printer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019852 Bug ID: 1019852 Summary: Review Request: ultimaker2-marlin-firmware - Ultimaker2 firmware for the 3D printer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/ultimaker2-marlin-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ultimaker2-marlin-firmware-13.10-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Ultimaker2 firmware for the 3D printer. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard -- 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 1016943] Review Request: crystal - KDE WM theme (KDE4-compatible version)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016943 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- OK, Ben, I sponsored you, so that part is done. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 981711] Review Request: openpgpsdk - OpenPGP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=981711 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Whiteboard|NotReady| Last Closed||2013-10-16 10:10:07 --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- No longer working on this. -- 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 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- taken :) -- 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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628
Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Issues:
- Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
forgotten '?' in macro
- Latest version is packaged.
This is a compat package so it's expected
- Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
Upstream probably doesn't use Maven, in this case this seems to work
- Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments)
provides for pom artifacts should be versioned as well I believe. Otherwise
we could have multiple packages providing same artifact even though one is
compat and other is not
For example:
mvn(org.apache.solr:solr-contrib)
should be in my opinion
mvn(org.apache.solr:solr-contrib:3)
I won't block review on this, it's just something that needs to be fixed
(most likely on XMvn/javapackages-tools side)
Basically the only issue is dist tag/non-versioned provide for pom artifacts
but that's not blocker. Since you are already repacking the tarball it might be
nicer to run find class/jar rm routine there instead of prep (smaller
tarball, easier audit etc).
APPROVED
= 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.
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of 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.
[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]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[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)
Maven:
[x]: 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
[Bug 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588 David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org --- Comment #6 from David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org --- Absent COPYING file from built 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 1019824] Review Request: python-dopy - Python client for the Digital Ocean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019824
--- Comment #3 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package has minor issues. :(
You should add BuildRequires: python-setuptools.
Please remove the hashbang from `manager.py` during %prep.
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
--- see rpmlint report
[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. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1019824-python-
dopy/licensecheck.txt
--- License-tag is fine :)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- Issues present
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
[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
[Bug 1019902] New: Review Request: vagrant - Vagrant with the KVM plugin.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019902 Bug ID: 1019902 Summary: Review Request: vagrant - Vagrant with the KVM plugin. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: adra...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/vagrant.spec SRPM URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/vagrant-1.3.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-vagrant-kvm.spec SRPM URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-vagrant-kvm-0.1.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-log4r.spec SRPM URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-log4r-1.1.10-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Vagrant is an automation tool used to manage development environments using virtualization and configuration management tools. It allows developers and teams to work on their projects and test them in an environment similar to production. Historically, Vagrant had a dependency on VirtualBox, but the newer versions have a plugin system allowing it to work with other virtualization technologies, including KVM. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Vagrant Fedora Account System Username: adrahon -- 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 1019902] Review Request: vagrant - Vagrant with the KVM plugin.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019902 Alex Drahon adra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||998503 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998503 [Bug 998503] Vagrant -- 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 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989 Jaroslav Imrich ja...@jariq.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Jaroslav Imrich ja...@jariq.sk --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ipwatchd New Branches: el5 Owners: jariq -- 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
--- Comment #7 from David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org ---
Thanks for fixing the above, and other complaints I made in IRC. You're
supposed to update the Spec: and SRPM: URLs with a new post to bugzilla, but
since you've updated the files in-place I can cope with that...
Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: findutils
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/gssntlmssp/gssntlmssp.so
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
(You include the whole directory now, so no need to list that file explicitly)
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/dwmw2/1018588-gssntlmssp/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
If you're calling this a 0.1.0 release, please make sure it matches the
downloadable tarball.
We also need to file a bug against krb5-libs for not owning the /etc/gss/
directory.
Other than that, it looks fine. Please fix the above issues and I'll pass it.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v3 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 1
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dwmw2/1018588-gssntlmssp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/gss
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/gss
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: %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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the
[Bug 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588 --- Comment #8 from David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org --- I filed bug 1019937 for the 'krb5-libs should own /etc/gss' issue. -- 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 1019437] Review Request: eyesight - Hawaii desktop image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019437 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-10-16 12:24:47 --- Comment #12 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Thank you! Imported and built. -- 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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 --- Comment #9 from Jan Lieskovsky jlies...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8) Thank you for the second round of review, Zbigniew. Much appreciated. Fixed the points below with new spec and srpm versions as follows: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jlieskov/scap-security-guide.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jlieskov/scap-security-guide-0.1-3.rc2.fc19.src.rpm (In reply to Jan Lieskovsky from comment #7) %description The scap-security-guide project provides guide for configuration of the system from final system's security point of view. The guidance is specified in the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) format and consitutes a catalog of practical hardening advice linked to government requirements where applicable. The project bridges the gap between generalized policy requirements and specific implementation guidelines. The scap-security-guide project provides [a] guide for configuration of the system from [the] final system's security point of view. The guidance is specified in the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) format and cons[t]itutes a catalog of practical hardening advice[,] linked to government requirements where applicable. The project bridges the gap between generalized policy requirements and specific implementation guidelines. Fixed - hopefully better now. I think one additional sentence, which gives an indication how this is to be used, would be great. Something like The administrator can use ... from openscap-utils or openscap-workbench to verify that the system conforms to guidelines. Or something like that, because the name -guide suggests that this is just documentation. Now it reads like: %description The scap-security-guide project provides a guide for configuration of the system from the final system's security point of view. The guidance is specified in the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) format and constitutes a catalog of practical hardening advice, linked to government requirements where applicable. The project bridges the gap between generalized policy requirements and specific implementation guidelines. The Fedora system administrator can use the oscap CLI tool from openscap-utils package, or the scap-workbench GUI tool from scap-workbench package to verify that the system conforms to provided guideline. Refer to scap-security-guide(8) manual page for further information. Let me know. Gzipping of manpages will be done automatically, just copy it into the right place. If the compression method changes, spec will not have to be adjusted. Fixed. Drop the chcon. Every package I have seen installs man pages without this. Drop %clean. Change .gz to *. in %files, so that it works if the compression changes. All three of the above fixed. Please have a look at new version. Looks fine Thanks. . Fedora 19 version is hardcoded in various places. Is the package really so version specific, that it must be specific for each version of Fedora? You most certainly want to build this for F20 and rawhide too... The original motivation for this was to have a way / possibility how to distinguish cases, when for example Fedora18 and Fedora19 wouldn't have the same content (IOW there would be certain Fedora release specific rules). But after internal discussion we have agreed to handle this on the level of XCCDF content definition, so removed the hard-coded Fedora release version from final files path, provided by package (though still left it in file names generated from SSG Makefile as at the moment not sure having for example universal ssg-fedora-xccdf.xml file would cover all cases. We might change this in the future yet if the reality shows all cases [scanning Fedora18 guest on Fedora19 host] would be still possible while having this filenames scheme). Source refers to your personal page. Why can't you use an real URL like https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/scap-security-guide.git/snapshot/scap- security-guide-d478d863b4166d105dbdd1b577d27edb3f847a86.tar.bz2? This has the advantage that it's easier to see the origin of sources. Agree this way the tarball source might be more transparent to final users. Though as of right now didn't find a way how to successfully predict future git commit's id (in the moment i am commiting the change to local repository don't know the id yet. Editing the spec file afterwards, committing again and squashing / merging the change from latest commit into previous one [in order the source URL to be correct] generates a new commit id. So far didn't find a way how to know next upcoming Git commit id in the moment of git commit (IOW not to need yet another one just to note the correct source URL in the spec file from the previous commit). Not to mention, that
[Bug 1018588] Review Request: gssntlmssp - A GSSAPI mechanism for NTLMSSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018588 David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dw...@infradead.org -- 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 1019948] New: Review Request: python-astroML - Python tools for machine learning and data mining in Astronomy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019948 Bug ID: 1019948 Summary: Review Request: python-astroML - Python tools for machine learning and data mining in Astronomy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chrisder...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-astroML/python-astroML.spec SRPM URL: http://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-astroML/python-astroML-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: AstroML is a Python module for machine learning and data mining built on numpy, scipy, scikit-learn, and matplotlib, and distributed under the 3-clause BSD license. It contains a growing library of statistical and machine learning routines for analyzing astronomical data in python, loaders for several open astronomical datasets, and a large suite of examples of analyzing and visualizing astronomical datasets. Fedora Account System Username: lupinix Thank you very much for reviewing. -- 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 1019948] Review Request: python-astroML - Python tools for machine learning and data mining in Astronomy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019948 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), ||100 (ML-SIG) Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- taken ;) 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=100 [Bug 100] Machine Learning 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 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859
--- Comment #3 from Kostas Georgiou k.georg...@atreides.org.uk ---
Thanks for the review, here are the new files and the changes.
Spec URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-Clui.spec
SRPM URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.src.rpm
FIX: The summary is not descriptive. See README or Clui.pm for better text.
DONE
TODO: Remove the BuildRoot definition and cleaning in the %install section and
remove the whole %clean section. They are not needed for Fedora.
DONE, I can always add them back if we need the package in epel-5
TODO: You can replace `%{__perl}' macro with plain `perl' command.
DONE
TODO: You can replace PERL_INSTALL_ROOT argument with standard DESTDIR
argument
in the %install section.
This doesn't seem to work:
make pure_install
DISTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.x86_64
ERROR: Can't create '/usr/share/man/man3'
Do not have write permissions on '/usr/share/man/man3'
TODO: You can remove deleting empty directories in the %install section.
ExtUtils::MakeMaker does not create empty directories anymore.
DONE
FIX: Remove %defattr macro from %files section. This is not needed anymore
(since rpm-4.4).
DONE
TODO: You could package the `example' subdirectory as a documentation.
DONE
FIX: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' (Clui.pm:13).
TODO: Build-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
TODO: Build-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
TODO: Run-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
TODO: Run-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
DONE
--
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
