[Bug 1015857] Review Request: golang-googlecode-sqlite - Trivial sqlite3 binding for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015857 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.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 1005320] Review Request: openstack-puppet-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320 --- Comment #14 from Ryan O'Hara roh...@redhat.com --- It appears the git repo didn't get created. I'm unable to clone openstack-puppet-modules and I see no repo on pkgs.fedoraproject.org. Perhaps I'm missing something? -- 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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Taking 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 996311] Review Request: perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read and Write STL (STereoLithography) format files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996311 --- Comment #6 from John C Peterson j...@eskimo.com --- Spec URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcp/perl-CAD-Format-STL.spec SRPM URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcp/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm Hi Petr, Thank you for taking time out to review my package. This version should correct all of the issues you raised (all of the FIX and TODO items as well). I modified the BuildRequires for perl(Module::Build) to require = 0.35. I did not check to see if it builds under EPEL-5 as I was planning to support EPEL-6 only for now (and EPEL-7, after RHEL-7 is released). Good eye on the use bytes which I missed! Regards, John -- 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 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Another note is that filtering out python sitearch libs is not required from Fedora 20, you don't need to do this anymore. I suggest that you should remove this in master branch in SCM, but leave it in f19-/EPEL. -- 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
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-Term-Clui.spec.old 2013-10-14 16:30:16.0 +0200
+++ perl-Term-Clui.spec 2013-10-16 18:53:57.0 +0200
@@ -1,22 +1,26 @@
Name: perl-Term-Clui
Version:1.68
-Release:1%{?dist}
-Summary:Term::Clui Perl module
+Release:2%{?dist}
+Summary:Perl module offering a Command-Line User Interface
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Term-Clui/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/P/PJ/PJB/Term-Clui-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Term::ReadKey)
BuildRequires: perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu)
BuildRequires: perl(Term::Size)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Simple)
+BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
+BuildRequires: perl(strict)
+BuildRequires: perl(warnings)
Requires: perl(Term::ReadKey)
Requires: perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu)
Requires: perl(Term::Size)
-Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
+Requires: perl(strict)
+Requires: perl(warnings)
+Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `perl -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
Term::Clui offers a high-level user interface to give the user of command-
@@ -30,33 +34,31 @@
%prep
%setup -q -n Term-Clui-%{version}
+#Don't pull in the examples dependencies
+chmod -x examples/*
%build
-%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
+perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
-
make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
-find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
%check
make test
-%clean
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
-
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc Changes README
+%doc Changes README examples
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Oct 16 2013 Kostas Georgiou georg...@opengamma.com 1.68-2
+- Review changes/fixes #1018859.
+
* Wed Oct 02 2013 Kostas Georgiou georg...@opengamma.com 1.68-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.
FIX: The summary is not descriptive. See README or Clui.pm for better text.
+Summary:Perl module offering a Command-Line User Interface
Ok.
TODO: Remove the BuildRoot definition and cleaning in the %install section
and remove the whole %clean section. They are not needed for Fedora.
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
-%clean
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
Ok.
TODO: You can replace `%{__perl}' macro with plain `perl' command.
Ok.
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'
I guess you misspelled DESTDIR as DISTDIR.
TODO: You can remove deleting empty directories in the %install section.
ExtUtils::MakeMaker does not create empty directories anymore.
-find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
Ok.
FIX: Remove %defattr macro from %files section. This is not needed anymore
(since rpm-4.4).
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Ok.
TODO: You could package the `example' subdirectory as a documentation.
-%doc Changes README
+%doc Changes README examples
Ok.
FIX: Build-require `perl(Exporter)' (Clui.pm:13).
+BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
Ok.
TODO: Build-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
+BuildRequires: perl(strict)
Ok.
TODO: Build-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
+BuildRequires: perl(warnings)
Ok.
TODO: Run-require `perl(strict)' (Clui.pm:20).
+Requires: perl(strict)
Ok.
TODO: Run-require `perl(warnings)' (Clui.pm:20).
+Requires: perl(warnings)
Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Term-Clui.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.fc21.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Term-Clui-1.68-2.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:
[Bug 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Thanks, I'll fix mentioned issues at the import time. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: solr3 Short Description: Apache Solr Owners: goldmann Branches: 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 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- I think you forgot to update the SPEC url. The license is not MIT I think. I opened this upstream issue https://github.com/sebfisch/primes/issues/2 since the License file seems to same Public Domain even though the .cabal file and source file consistently state BSD 3 Clause license. Perhaps it would be better to exclude the license file from the package until this is resolved upstream? -- 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 #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process -- 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 #2 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mod_scgi
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
- Package is licensed with MIT, and CNRI for the code it forked
- Long running packages must be hardened (_hardened_build)
- Package has a %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Package contains a bundled passfd
The upstream name is actually scgi, the package should maybe be named scgi
and build sub-packages python-passfd and mod_scgi.
- Does it really run with the specific version of httpd it was built against ?
Requires: httpd-mmn = %(cat %{_includedir}/httpd/.mmn || echo missing)
- Spec uses unversionned __python macro
- Missing .py and .pyo for quixote_handler and scgi_server
- Patches don't link to upstream bugs/comments/lists and are not justified.
- Spec uses %define instead of %global
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1013485-mod_scgi/licensecheck.txt
[!]: %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.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 8 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-]: 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 is not relocatable.
[x]:
[Bug 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Initial notes: * License - It seems that the correct license tag for -doc subpackage should be ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+ and MIT. Would you check this? (see attached) Also, it is preferred that some explanation is written on spec file about some detailed license information (or including license information notes in source rpm) * Note that the licenses of files under test/data is somewhat unclear. Looking at linkparse.txt first and next the rest files, it seems that these files are copied from python openid (see: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/heraldry/libraries/python/openid/trunk/openid/test/linkparse.txt https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/heraldry/libraries/python/openid/trunk/COPYING ). For now I don't think this is a blocker, however please try to clarify. * Improper Obsoletes - Obsoletes: ruby-openid = 2.1.7-11 obsoletes ruby-openid = 2.1.7-11 _only_ (not no more than). * Filtering depedendency from examples/ directory - The common way for this is to remove executable permission bits from all files under examples/ directory. * Notes for documents - Files like INSTALL.md is in most cases not needed, because we install the software using packaged rpm (i.e. not by following the method written in INSTALL.md) - I recommend to move README.md to main package, because it says README, indicating the upstream want users to read 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 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 813204 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=813204action=edit license analysis result My license analysis result -- 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 #3 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- I've also just noticed that quixote_handler and scgi_server are in both bindir and python_sitearch. -- 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 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 813218 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=813218action=edit 1-ghc-primes.spec.patch I was suggesting something like these changes in my earlier comments (plus License tag fix). (cabal-rpm-0.8.6 is still in updates-testing this week.) -- 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 Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1019977 |1020166 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019977 [Bug 1019977] 'lmi' python namespace not properly registered https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020166 [Bug 1020166] python eggs depending on openlmi-tools can not install -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- FIX: mkdb/metaphon.c states its license is 'Public domain' explicitly. The License tag should reflect it. FIX: Don't mention the BSD license. You're removing the bundled code and using system tcp_wrappers. I don't think there are any other issues with the 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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603 --- Comment #3 from Michal Minar mimi...@redhat.com --- Check out new SRPM: http://miminar.fedorapeople.org/openlmi-scripts-0.2.3-3.fc20.src.rpm All the above errors except for the 'lmi' one should be 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 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096 --- Comment #20 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- There's no such package as perl-Jdb or anything providing perl(Jdb); could you explain that obsoletes/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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Updated package is on the same URLs. (I just wonder that nobody cares about License tag in source packages). -- 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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780
--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #2)
Kohi scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6061098
MUST
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
From recent Guidelines change:
Package don't contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
The unversioned macro, %{__python} is deprecated.
use {__python2} %{python2_sitelib} macros to be consistent
Well, as you know, I consider this FPC decision to be a non-helpful mistake,
exactly because of cases like these.
- The python bindings of this package are optional.
- The package's python bindings are not tied to any particular version of
python.
- The package is supposed to be build against the distribution's default
python.
= Enforcing to use python2|3 means unnecessarily tying the package against a
specific version of python.
That said, thanks to the churn this all causes, I am quite strongly leaning
towards not packaging the python bindings at all.
For now, I have decided to unconditionally switch to python3, because I do not
see much sense in adding support for an discontinued version of python in a new
package.
Notice, I will prefer the python BR in python sub-package.
I don't understand.
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Version 1.0 is not released, so this is a pre-release
= Release: 0.1
Well, upstream is quite inconsistent on this. Internally, they consistently use
version 1.0. In README.md, they are talking about 0.9.
As the Release-tag is not of much importance (and doesn't make any difference
to users) I an switching to using Release: 0.x.y
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
Common licenses that require including their texts with all
derivative works include ASL 2.0...
= COPYING is now present on github
Yes. Wasn't present at the time, I pulled the tarball.
SHOULD
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
= Could use %{name} in URL, python description, ...
Done.
COULD
[!]: Too large wildcard, because I dislike them ;)
%{_libdir}/libgumbo.so.1*
%{python_sitelib}/gumbo*
My personal preference differs.
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #3)
Can you please check why _GumboNode.3 instead of GumboNode.3 ?
Upstream bug. They fixed it.
Updated package with a couple of more issues fixed:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/gumbo-parser.spec
SRPM URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/gumbo-parser-1.0-0.2.20131001gitd90ea2b.fc21.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 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
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Spec file changes:
--- perl-CAD-Format-STL.spec.old2013-08-13 20:53:41.0 +0200
+++ perl-CAD-Format-STL.spec2013-10-17 02:08:27.0 +0200
@@ -1,29 +1,32 @@
# Declare the CPAN name of the module
%define mod_basename CAD-Format-STL
+# RPM's auto require for perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) fails, handle manually
+%define __requires_exclude ^perl\\(Class::Accessor::Classy\\)$
Name: perl-%{mod_basename}
Version:0.2.1
-Release:3%{?dist}
-Summary:Read and Write STL (STereoLithography) format files
+Release:4%{?dist}
+Summary:Read and Write STL (STereo Lithography) format files
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/%{mod_basename}/
Source:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/CAD/%{mod_basename}-v%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch
-BuildRequires: perl
BuildRequires: perl(strict)
BuildRequires: perl(warnings)
BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
-BuildRequires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
+BuildRequires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = 0.1.3
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build) = 0.35
# These are needed for Build test
+BuildRequires: perl(bytes)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
+Requires: perl(bytes)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
-Requires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3
+Requires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = 0.1.3
%description
The CAD::Format::STL perl module provides object-oriented methods to read
-and write files in STL (STereoLithography) format. Support is provided
+and write files in STL (STereo Lithography) format. Support is provided
for both the ASCII and binary versions of the STL format.
%prep
@@ -31,7 +34,7 @@
%build
# Using Module::Build since a Build.PL is present
-%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor
+perl Build.PL installdirs=vendor
./Build
%install
@@ -50,14 +53,19 @@
%endif
%files
-%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} 6
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%endif
%doc files Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Wed Oct 16 2013 John C. Peterson j...@eskimo.com 0.2.1-4
+- Various fixes that were required or suggested by the package reviewer:
+ Added the package's version number build requirement for perl(Module::Build)
+ Added filter rule for rpm's auto require of perl(Class::Accessor::Classy)
+ Added perl(bytes) to both the build and runtime requirements
+ Removed the redundant defattr macro from the files section
+ Replaced the __perl macro with just perl in the build section
+
* Tue Aug 13 2013 John C. Peterson j...@eskimo.com 0.2.1-3
- Some cosmetic tweaks to the macros that check for the specific case of RHEL.
TODO: You can replace the `%{__perl}' macro with plain `perl'.
TODO: You can do the same at perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_*) definition.
TODO: You can remove the deffattr macro completely, because even EPEL-5 has
rpm-4.4 where the macro is redundant.
-%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} 6
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%endif
Ok.
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.
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build) = 0.35
Ok.
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).
-BuildRequires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3
+BuildRequires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = 0.1.3
Ok.
TODO: Build-require `perl(bytes)' (lib/CAD/Format/STL.pm:421).
+BuildRequires: perl(bytes)
Ok.
FIX: Remove `v' from `perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3' dependency
declarations.
-Requires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = v0.1.3
+Requires: perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) = 0.1.3
Ok.
TODO: Filter the under-specified dependency `perl(Class::Accessor::Classy)'.
+# RPM's auto require for perl(Class::Accessor::Classy) fails, handle manually
+%define __requires_exclude ^perl\\(Class::Accessor::Classy\\)$
Ok.
TODO: There is a convention to place the macro just before %description
section.
TODO: Run-require `perl(bytes)' (lib/CAD/Format/STL.pm:421).
+Requires: perl(bytes)
Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-CAD-Format-STL.spec
../SRPMS/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-4.fc21.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-4.fc21.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is OPk.
$ rpm -q --requires -p
[Bug 996311] Review Request: perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read and Write STL (STereo Lithography) format files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996311 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read |perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read |and Write STL |and Write STL (STereo |(STereoLithography) format |Lithography) format files |files | -- 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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- I mostly agree on those python macro... but we have approve this ;) Notice, I will prefer the python BR in python sub-package. I don't understand. I just mean to move the BuildRequires: python3-setuptools python3-devel in the %package python section of the spec. But probably it only make sense to me ;) [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: license text(s) [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). So: 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 1005320] Review Request: openstack-puppet-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com --- Can't see it either? BTW I agree the install path for the modules should change as per comment 12 Setting 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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - A Python library that integrates Twisted with SqlAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428 --- Comment #8 from Vladan Popovic vpopo...@redhat.com --- Can't beleive I forgot this, sorry. It should be ok now, I ran rpmlint and it doesn't complain. 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 1019453] Review Request: sddm-kcm - SDDM KDE configuration module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019453 --- Comment #2 from Martin Bříza mbr...@redhat.com --- Updated: Spec URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/sddm/sddm-kcm.spec SRPM URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/sddm/sddm-kcm-0.0.0-0.1.20131015gitafdda33c.fc19.src.rpm Notes: 1. There is no official release, just git. I'm not sure if this versioning will be fine - I just suppose sddm-kcm will use the same versioning scheme as sddm does. 2. It doesn't list themes but other settings 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 829713] Review Request: grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 Martin Edlman martin.edl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.edl...@gmail.com --- Comment #24 from Martin Edlman martin.edl...@gmail.com --- Hello Vasiliy and Juan, I tried to compile SRPM (http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/grive/grive-0.3.0-0.1.20130702git27817e8.fc19.src.rpm) on my F19 build system and compilation failed bacause of missing gcc-c++ compiler. Build didn't complain of it, so there is missing dependency in the spec file. You should check and fix the spec file. BuildRequire: gcc-c++ Maybe it requires some other stuff which is already installed on my system, so it doesn't complain. p.s.: thanks for grive! :-) Regards, Martin -- 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 Kostas Georgiou k.georg...@atreides.org.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Kostas Georgiou k.georg...@atreides.org.uk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Term-Clui Short Description: Perl module offering a Command-Line User Interface Owners: georgiou Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: perl-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 829713] Review Request: grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 --- Comment #25 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com --- No, gcc-c++ not needed in BR because https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 -- 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 1018862] Review Request: perl-File-SearchPath - Search for a file in an environment variable path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018862 --- Comment #4 from Kostas Georgiou k.georg...@atreides.org.uk --- Updated files with fixes for all TODO and FIX items. Spec URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-SearchPath.spec SRPM URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-SearchPath-0.06-2.fc21.src.rpm Assuming that everything passes is it OK for the new package request to contain el6 even though it will be blocked by #1018330 or should be done as a seperate step once that Env::Path is available for epel-6? -- 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 1020292] New: Review Request: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292 Bug ID: 1020292 Summary: Review Request: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: juan.o...@miceliux.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin/bitcoin.spec SRPM URL: http://jorti.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin/bitcoin-0.8.5-2.fc19.src.rpm Description: Bitcoin is an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin is also the name of the open source software which enables the use of this currency. Fedora Account System Username: jorti -- 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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gumbo-parser Short Description: A HTML5 parser library Owners: corsepiu Branches: f18 f19 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 1020292] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292 Juan Orti Alcaine juan.o...@miceliux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Depends On||319901, 999584 --- Comment #1 from Juan Orti Alcaine juan.o...@miceliux.com --- I submit this package now that EC crypto has been enabled in Fedora. Co-mantainers are welcomed! Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901 [Bug 319901] missing ec and ecparam commands in openssl package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999584 [Bug 999584] Packaged policy modules need a way to determine the selinux-policy version number -- 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 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Additional notes: * Test suite files - Current ruby guidelines says not to include files under test/ into binary rpm: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Running_test_suites See Do not ship tests . If you exclude test/ directory from -doc subpackage, LGPLv2+ license tag is not needed. -- 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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- First of all thanks for the review! (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #5) I mostly agree on those python macro... but we have approve this ;) Likely we are going to see if/else %fedora/%rhel cascades in rpm-specs to switch to the different default python because %__python was banned. IMNSHO, this is stupid and needs to be revisited. Notice, I will prefer the python BR in python sub-package. I don't understand. I just mean to move the BuildRequires: python3-setuptools python3-devel in the %package python section of the spec. But probably it only make sense to me ;) :=) AFAICT, it technically doesn't matter all. -- 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 1020309] New: Review Request: kde-connect - KDE Connect client for communication with smartphones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020309 Bug ID: 1020309 Summary: Review Request: kde-connect - KDE Connect client for communication with smartphones Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mbr...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/kdeconnect/kde-connect.spec SRPM URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/kdeconnect/kde-connect-0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: KDE Connect adds communication between KDE and your smartphone. Currently, you can pair with your Android phone using the KDE Connect app from Albert Vaka which you can obtain on Google Play. Fedora Account System Username: mbriza -- 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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 --- 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 1020309] Review Request: kde-connect - KDE Connect client for communication with smartphones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020309 Martin Bříza mbr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Alias||kde-connect Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 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 829713] Review Request: grive - An open source Linux client for Google Drive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 --- Comment #26 from Martin Edlman martin.edl...@gmail.com --- Ohh, I see. Sorry :-/ -- 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 #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- As this bug has been reopened, I will review this again. Great to see that people work together! :-) -- 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 #16 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Sorry, not sure what happened, should be fine now. -- 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? | -- 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 #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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628 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 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 #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 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859 --- Comment #6 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 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859 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 1017645] Review Request: hibernate-search - Hibernate Search
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017645 Bug 1017645 depends on bug 1017628, which changed state. Bug 1017628 Summary: Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628 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 1017628] Review Request: solr3 - Apache Solr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017628 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Fixed In Version||solr3-3.6.2-5 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-17 08:47:04 --- Comment #8 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Thanks! Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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 1000154] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate - Provides a DNS service update plugin using nsupdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000154 Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com --- Thank you, looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000154] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate - Provides a DNS service update plugin using nsupdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000154 Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate Short Description: Provides a DNS service update plugin using nsupdate Owners: tdawson Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1017645] Review Request: hibernate-search - Hibernate Search
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017645 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hibernate-search/2/hibernate-search.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hibernate-search/2/hibernate-search-4.4.0-0.2.CR1.fc19.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6070313 Changes: - Adjusted to use solr3 compat 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 1013485] Re-Review Request: mod_scgi - Python implementation of the SCGI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013485 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 1000154] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate - Provides a DNS service update plugin using nsupdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000154 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 1000154] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate - Provides a DNS service update plugin using nsupdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000154 --- Comment #5 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 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - convert and install rpm , deb , tgz and other packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #21 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- OK new release under GPL only: Spec : http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/almohawell.spec SRPM : http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/almohawell-9.3.2-1.oji.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 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Looks good. Here is my formal
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libodb-boost-*
libodb-boost.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-boost.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
^^^ False positives.
libodb-boost.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict
GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. Well, since we're moving to unversioned docdirs this will
definitely cause issues. Please be careful with EL5 and EL6.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. A necessary runtime
requirement is picked up automatically in Fedora, but EL5 (and maybe even EL6)
will require explicit Requires: pkgconfig
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@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 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Looks good to me. Here is my formal
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are either false positives or
informative only:
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libodb-mysql-*
libodb-mysql.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, rudiment
libodb-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict
GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. Well, since we're moving to unversioned docdirs this will
definitely cause issues. Please be careful with EL5 and EL6.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. A necessary runtime
requirement is picked up automatically in Fedora, but EL5 (and maybe even EL6)
will require explicit Requires: pkgconfig
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 --- Comment #11 from Jan Lieskovsky jlies...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10) Looks fine now. Thank you, Zbigniew. Rpmlint only complains about spelling, all false positives. Yeah, noticed those yesterday, but those were just red herrings. Note that scap-secuirity-guide(8) still refers to the old path (with /content/). Thank you, good catch. Fixed now yet: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jlieskov/scap-security-guide.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jlieskov/scap-security-guide-0.1-3.rc3.fc19.src.rpm Package is APPROVED. Thank you, much appreciated. Regards, Jan. -- Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies 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 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Looks good. Here is my formal
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent
work ~/Desktop:
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libodb-pgsql-*
libodb-pgsql.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-pgsql.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-pgsql.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-pgsql.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, rudiment
libodb-pgsql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict
GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. Well, since we're moving to unversioned docdirs this will
definitely cause issues. Please be careful with EL5 and EL6.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. A necessary runtime
requirement is picked up automatically in Fedora, but EL5 (and maybe even EL6)
will require explicit Requires: pkgconfig
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 975318] Review Request: libodb-sqlite - SQLite ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Looks good for me.
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libodb-sqlite-*
libodb-sqlite.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-sqlite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-sqlite.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-sqlite.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime - run
time, run-time, rudiment
libodb-sqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict
GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. Well, since we're moving to unversioned docdirs this will
definitely cause issues. Please be careful with EL5 and EL6.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. A necessary runtime
requirement is picked up automatically in Fedora, but EL5 (and maybe even EL6)
will require explicit Requires: pkgconfig
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
Looks good.
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libodb-qt-*
libodb-qt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time, run-time,
rudiment
libodb-qt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime - run time,
run-time, rudiment
libodb-qt.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict
GPLv2).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. Well, since we're moving to unversioned docdirs this will
definitely cause issues. Please be careful with EL5 and EL6.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. A necessary runtime
requirement is picked up automatically in Fedora, but EL5 (and maybe even EL6)
will require explicit Requires: pkgconfig
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 1000154] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate - Provides a DNS service update plugin using nsupdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000154 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate-1.10.2.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate-1.10.2.1-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000154] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-nsupdate - Provides a DNS service update plugin using nsupdate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000154 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 1020014] Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
A template of mine:
http://cicku.me/python-pygit2.spec
1. BuildRequires: python2-devel
AND
BuildRequires: python-setuptools
2. No %build? Kidding?
%{__python2} setup.py build
3. Ask upstream to tag their project.
--
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 1020404] New: Review Request: perl-Archive-Peek - Peek into archives without extracting them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020404 Bug ID: 1020404 Summary: Review Request: perl-Archive-Peek - Peek into archives without extracting them Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Archive-Peek/branches/fedora/perl-Archive-Peek.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Archive-Peek/perl-Archive-Peek-0.35-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This module lets you peek into archives without extracting them. It currently supports tar files and zip files. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc This is a dependency of the current upstream version of perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages. -- 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 1020292] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292 Michael Hampton er...@ioerror.us changed: What|Removed |Added CC||er...@ioerror.us --- Comment #2 from Michael Hampton er...@ioerror.us --- I'm happy to co-maintain this, especially since you've based this on my previous work. One big problem that is not resolved here is that Bitcoin ships a bundled copy of leveldb, and this needs to be dealt with. This is harder than it looks: Bitcoin uses code from leveldb that Fedora does not currently ship, so leveldb is going to need to be changed first. I'll do a full review later. -- 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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gumbo-parser-1.0-0.2.20131001gitd90ea2b.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gumbo-parser-1.0-0.2.20131001gitd90ea2b.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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 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 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gumbo-parser-1.0-0.2.20131001gitd90ea2b.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gumbo-parser-1.0-0.2.20131001gitd90ea2b.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 997780] Review Request: gumbo-parser - A HTML5 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997780 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gumbo-parser-1.0-0.2.20131001gitd90ea2b.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gumbo-parser-1.0-0.2.20131001gitd90ea2b.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 1005320] Review Request: openstack-puppet-modules - Puppet modules used to install OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320 --- Comment #17 from Pádraig Brady pbr...@redhat.com --- Actually package only contains files in /usr/share/puppet/modules/... and that does seem sensible on the face of it. I've confirmed the git repo is now available. thanks. -- 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 1020435] New: Review Request: perl-jmx4perl - JSON-HTTP based acess to a remote JMX agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020435 Bug ID: 1020435 Summary: Review Request: perl-jmx4perl - JSON-HTTP based acess to a remote JMX agent Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: k.georg...@atreides.org.uk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org//perl-jmx4perl.spec SRPM URL: http://georgiou.fedorapeople.org//perl-jmx4perl-1.07-2.fc19.src.rpm Description: Jmx4Perl provides an alternate way for accessing Java JEE Server management interfaces which are based on JMX (Java Management Extensions). It is an agent based approach, where a small Java Webapplication deployed on the application server provides an HTTP/JSON based access to JMX MBeans registered within the application server. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020435] Review Request: perl-jmx4perl - JSON-HTTP based acess to a remote JMX agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020435 Kostas Georgiou k.georg...@atreides.org.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1018862 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018862 [Bug 1018862] Review Request: perl-File-SearchPath - Search for a file in an environment variable path -- 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 1018862] Review Request: perl-File-SearchPath - Search for a file in an environment variable path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018862 Kostas Georgiou k.georg...@atreides.org.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1020435 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020435 [Bug 1020435] Review Request: perl-jmx4perl - JSON-HTTP based acess to a remote JMX agent -- 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 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mizde...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Contains some MP3-related code and MP3 file. This may need to be removed per [1]. Everything else looks OK. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#MP3_Support -- 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 1020456] New: Review Request: vagrant - an automation tool used to manage development environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 Bug ID: 1020456 Summary: Review Request: vagrant - an automation tool used to manage development environments 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 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 1020457] New: Review Request: rubygem-vagrant-kvm - KVM plugin for Vagrant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020457 Bug ID: 1020457 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-vagrant-kvm - KVM plugin for Vagrant 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/rubygem-vagrant-kvm.spec SRPM URL: http://srpms.adrahon.org/rubygem-vagrant-kvm-0.1.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package provides KVM support for Vagrant. 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 1020292] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292 Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wtog...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Warren Togami wtog...@gmail.com --- Upstream developers including gmaxwell, jgarzik and myself expressed an interest in being involved with this review. Please DO NOT APPROVE without upstream cooperation. Bitcoin is very strange software where distributions can create systemic risk if inappropriately modified nodes exist in large numbers due to the danger of altering the norms of global consensus. http://bitcoinmagazine.com/5858/linux-distribution-packaging-and-bitcoin/ For this reason, it is vital that as much of the network as possible uses unmodified implementations that have been carefully audited and tested, including dependencies. For instance, if the included copy of LevelDB in bitcoind is replaced by a system-wide shared library, any change to that shared library requires auditing and testing, a requirement generally not met by standard distributor packaging practices. Luke-Jr packagers can use system leveldb, but doing so safely *needs* appropriate care Luke-Jr most distros aren't willing to give that care Luke-Jr in particular, they need to lock leveldb to known-good versions (not even doing bugfixes), and disable snappy support Bitcoin's leveldb is a fork or a separately built and maintained instance of leveldb. I suggested that they rename this separate leveldb to make it clear that it is Bitcoin-specific. -- 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 1020457] Review Request: rubygem-vagrant-kvm - KVM plugin for Vagrant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020457 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 1020456] Review Request: vagrant - an automation tool used to manage development environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 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 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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-10-17 13:21:19 --- Comment #2 from Alex Drahon adra...@redhat.com --- replaced with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020457 -- 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 1020467] New: Review Request: python-scss - A Scss compiler for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020467 Bug ID: 1020467 Summary: Review Request: python-scss - A Scss compiler for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//python-scss.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//python-scss-1.2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A Scss compiler for Python -- 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 1020467] Review Request: python-scss - A Scss compiler for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020467 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||puiterw...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6071309 -- 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 1020467] Review Request: python-scss - A Scss compiler for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020467 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pwout...@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 1020468] New: Review Request: ucpp - Embeddable, quick, light and fully compliant ISO C99 preprocessor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020468 Bug ID: 1020468 Summary: Review Request: ucpp - Embeddable, quick, light and fully compliant ISO C99 preprocessor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: domi...@greysector.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ucpp/ucpp.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ucpp/ucpp-1.3.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A C preprocessor is a part of a C compiler responsible for macro replacement, conditional compilation and inclusion of header files. It is often found as a stand-alone program on Unix systems. ucpp is such a preprocessor; it is designed to be quick and light, but anyway fully compliant to the ISO standard 9899:1999, also known as C99. ucpp can be compiled as a stand-alone program, or linked to some other code; in the latter case, ucpp will output tokens, one at a time, on demand, as an integrated lexer. Fedora Account System Username: rathann -- 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 --- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Thank you very much, Björn! Created new spec and source rpm to fix the issues: Spec URL: http://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-astroML/v2/python-astroML.spec SRPM URL: http://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-astroML/v2/python-astroml-0.1.2-2.fc19.src.rpm Greetings, Christian -- 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 1018533] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd socket activation, journal and D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018533 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-coreos-go-systemd-0-0.2.git68bc612.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523 Bug 1018523 depends on bug 1018533, which changed state. Bug 1018533 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd socket activation, journal and D-BUS APIs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018533 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA 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 1015857] Review Request: golang-googlecode-sqlite - Trivial sqlite3 binding for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015857 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.el6: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11862/golang-googlecode-sqlite-0-0.8.hg74691fb6f837.el6 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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|CLOSED |ON_QA 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 1010725] Review Request: qt5-qttranslations - Qt5 - QtTranslations module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010725 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|qt5-qttranslations-5.1.1-1. |qt5-qttranslations-5.1.1-1. |fc18|el6 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- qt5-qttranslations-5.1.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable 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 1018501] Review Request: golang-bitbucket-kardianos-osext - Extensions to the standard Go OS package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018501 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-bitbucket-kardianos-osext-0-0.3.hg364fb577de68.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1018523] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-log - A golang library for logging to systemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018523 Bug 1018523 depends on bug 1018501, which changed state. Bug 1018501 Summary: Review Request: golang-bitbucket-kardianos-osext - Extensions to the standard Go OS package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018501 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.6.hg61664b8425f3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1020014] Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 --- Comment #3 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- D'oh. Of course there is a %build. :) Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6072006 Spec URL: http://kupo.se/pub/review/pylcdsysinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://kupo.se/pub/review/pylcdsysinfo-0.0.1-6.20131014git98e1b80.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
