[Bug 1020844] Review Request: stapler-adjunct-timeline - Timeline widget support for Stapler web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020844 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-21 02:00:43 --- Comment #4 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review and the repo. The package is now available in Rawhide, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021091] Review Request: dnsyo - Check DNS against many global DNS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021091 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1021091] Review Request: dnsyo - Check DNS against many global DNS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021091 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dnsyo-1.0.2-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnsyo-1.0.2-4.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Cleanup for review: - drop SCL support - drop EL-5 supprot Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/60d9c2f6aff807c61d743d32c1a44f6ef5a89758/php/php-twig-ctwig/php-twig-ctwig.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-twig-ctwig-1.14.1-3.remi.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 1021339] New: Review Request: ghc-events - Library and tool for parsing .eventlog files from GHC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021339 Bug ID: 1021339 Summary: Review Request: ghc-events - Library and tool for parsing .eventlog files from GHC Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-events.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-events-0.4.2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Parses .eventlog files emitted by GHC 6.12.1 and later. Includes the ghc-events tool permitting, in particular, to dump an event log file as text. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021339] Review Request: ghc-events - Library and tool for parsing .eventlog files from GHC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021339 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Whiteboard||Ready --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Needed for the ghc ThreadScope tool. This is a BinLib package providing the ghc-events tool and library. I am not sure how much used the ghc-events tool is - if it is less important it could also be added to devel subpackage. I will try to ask people with experience with ghc eventlogging. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854729] Review Request: bat-extratools-java - A collection of extra java tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854729 --- Comment #6 from Wei-Lun Chao blue...@member.fsf.org --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6082600 SPEC URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/bat/bat-extratools-java.spec SRPM URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/bat/bat-extratools-java-15.0-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021339] Review Request: ghc-events - Library and tool for parsing .eventlog files from GHC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021339 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Koji rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6082464 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021091] Review Request: dnsyo - Check DNS against many global DNS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021091 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dnsyo-1.0.2-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnsyo-1.0.2-5.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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rwhoisd Short Description: ARIN's Referral WHOIS server Owners: ppisar 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 1021091] Review Request: dnsyo - Check DNS against many global DNS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021091 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dnsyo-1.0.2-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnsyo-1.0.2-5.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 1021091] Review Request: dnsyo - Check DNS against many global DNS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021091 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dnsyo-1.0.2-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnsyo-1.0.2-5.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 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553
--- Comment #60 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #59)
Upstream's CMakeLists.txt does this:
FIND_PACKAGE(Subversion)
IF(Subversion_FOUND)
Subversion_WC_INFO(${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR} GUAYADEQUE)
MESSAGE(Current revision is ${GUAYADEQUE_WC_REVISION})
SET( _GUREVISION_ ${GUAYADEQUE_WC_REVISION})
ELSE(Subversion_FOUND)
SET( _GUREVISION_ )
ENDIF(Subversion_FOUND)
In particular, this line:
Subversion_WC_INFO(${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR} GUAYADEQUE)
runs svn info on the current directory to obtain the revision and store it
in the CMake variable GUAYADEQUE_WC_REVISION, which is then copies to the
CMake variable _GUREVISION_, presumably to show it in some about dialog or
something. And the tarball they ship is a working copy in an outdated format
(outdated SVN version). (IMHO, shipping SVN working copies rather than
exports as tarballs is broken in the first place.)
IMHO, just removing the .svn directories (i.e. converting the working copies
to a clean export) is the best fix, but you could also run svn upgrade in
the specfile (with BuildRequires: subversion) if you think it's important to
have the revision show up (but you could also manually specify
-D_GUREVISION_:STRING=1885 on the cmake command line to get that).
@kevin
i have set a find .. command in prep section and the -D_GUREVISION_ option
in the command line, is this ok ?
%prep
%setup -q -n %{name}-svn%{svnrev}
%patch0 -p1
# deleting Unity parts in guayadeque.desktop files
sed -i '18,38d' guayadeque.desktop
# remove bundled libraries
rm -rf src/wx/wxsql* src/wxsqlite3
# remove .svn dirs
find -type d -name .svn | xargs rm -rf .svn
%build
mkdir -p build-guayadeque pushd build-guayadeque
%cmake \
-DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=TRUE \
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{_prefix} \
-DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=FALSE \
-DCMAKE_BUILD_WITH_INSTALL_RPATH=FALSE \
-D_GUREVISION_:STRING=%{svnrev} \
..
make %{?_smp_mflags}
popd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020681] Review Request: pgtoolkit - Tools for PostgreSQL maintenance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020681 --- Comment #5 from Dale Macartney dbmacart...@gmail.com --- Contacted author of pgtoolkit for confirmation of license as tarball was not very clear. Updated spec to use PostgreSQL license. SPEC: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/pgtoolkit/pgtoolkit.spec SRPM: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/pgtoolkit/pgtoolkit-1.0.0-3.fc19.src.rpm koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6082795 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #7 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for the update.
BTW:
%if 0%{?fedora} 19
rm -f ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_docdir}/%{name}/LICENSE
%else
rm -f ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE
%endif
you can use %{_pkgdocdir} for this:
rm ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_pkgdocdir}/LICENSE
should work across all current Fedora releases
(though not yet for 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 987622] Review Request: python-behave - Tools for the behaviour-driven development, Python style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987622 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- taken ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401
Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com ---
I recommend quoting the commented %doc in the filelist to avoid
the rpmlint warning about macro in comment.
Otherwise the package looks basically looks fine to me.
(Not sure if it is some local mock issue but fedora-review
gave me some slightly strange outputs so I may wait a day or so
to approve finally in case anyone can clarify.)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: ghc-primes-devel. Does not provide -static: ghc-
primes-devel.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
I believe this is a fedora-review bug: static is provided,
though see also Haskell Packaging Guidelines which cover this.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
False positive?
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/package.conf.d,
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3,
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/package.conf.d
@fedora-review: Huh?
Both owned by ghc
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
But I suggest using _pkgdocdir as mentioned in previous comment.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 16 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set
[Bug 1019436] Review Request: hawaii-widget-styles - Styles for applications using QtQuick Controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019436 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hawaii-widget-styles Short Description: Styles for applications using QtQuick Controls Owners: lkundrak Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #61 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- find -type d -name .svn | xargs rm -rf .svn Can be find -type d -name .svn -delete -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 979767] Review Request: kapow - A punch clock program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979767 --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Spec updated: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/kapow/kapow.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/kapow/kapow-1.4.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm * Mon Oct 21 2013 Ankur Sinha ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org 1.4.4.1-1 - Update as per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979767#c6 - Remove comments - Own datadir/name directory - Own icon directories - Add an appdata file [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/kapow.spec ./kapow-1.4.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm kapow.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kapow 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #14 from Reiner Rottmann rei...@rottmann.it --- Spec URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm RPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.17-1.fc19.noarch.rpm MOCK: [rottmrei@fedora19 SRPMS]$ mock apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm You are attempting to run mock which requires administrative privileges, but more information is needed in order to do so. Authenticating as root Password: INFO: mock.py version 1.1.33 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run INFO: Start(apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm) Config(fedora-19-x86_64) Start: lock buildroot Start: clean chroot Finish: clean chroot Finish: lock buildroot Start: chroot init Start: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.1.33 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.33 INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Start: device setup Finish: device setup Start: yum update Start: Outputting list of available packages Finish: Outputting list of available packages Finish: yum update Start: creating cache Finish: creating cache Finish: lock buildroot Finish: chroot init INFO: Installed packages: Start: build phase for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Start: device setup Finish: device setup Start: build setup for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Finish: build setup for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Start: rpmbuild -bb apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Start: Outputting list of installed packages Finish: Outputting list of installed packages Finish: rpmbuild -bb apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Finish: build phase for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm INFO: Done(apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm) Config(default) 5 minutes 14 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/result Finish: run RPMLINT: [rottmrei@fedora19 ~]$ rpmlint -i /home/rottmrei/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/apf-1.17-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 979767] Review Request: kapow - A punch clock program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979767
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
No, you are doing something wrong:
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/22x22/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/24x24/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/256x256/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/
These dirs are used by other pkgs, too:
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps(hicolor-icon-theme),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos,
metromap), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps(hicolor-icon-theme,
fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps(hicolor-icon-theme,
fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(hicolor-icon-theme,
fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps(hicolor-icon-theme),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128(hicolor-icon-theme),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64(hicolor-icon-theme), /usr/share/appdata
(gnome-color-manager, ghex, baobab, gnome-contacts, gnome-calculator,
gnome-documents, epiphany, gnome-system-monitor, simple-scan, gedit,
filesystem, gnome-boxes), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256(hicolor-icon-
theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor(hicolor-icon-theme,
fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
logos)
My opinion is that you should keep original list but only add these two:
/usr/share/kapow, /usr/share/kapow/translations
to be owned.
Please fix issues above before import.
---
PACKAGE 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 979767] Review Request: kapow - A punch clock program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979767 Christopher Meng cicku...@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 979767] Review Request: kapow - A punch clock program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979767
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Forgot to say:
Use macro to ldflags:
export LDFLAGS=%{__global_ldflags}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1. You'd better leave a blank line for each changelog, this will let us see
changes clearly.
2. %{_datarootdir} -- %{_datadir} is more common.
3. Remove old EL5 stuffs:
rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install
%clean
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972346] Review Request: ros-common_msgs - Common ROS Messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972346 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Let's wait Rich to response. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- Spec URL: http://kupo.se/pub/review/pylcdsysinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://kupo.se/pub/review/pylcdsysinfo-0-0.7.20131014git.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6083347 %changelog * Mon Oct 21 2013 Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se - 0-0.7.20131014git - Changed version string to comply with guidelines - Updated changelog entires to reflect the corrected version string -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021485] New: Review Request: oscap-anaconda-addon - Anaconda addon integrating OpenSCAP to the installation process
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021485 Bug ID: 1021485 Summary: Review Request: oscap-anaconda-addon - Anaconda addon integrating OpenSCAP to the installation process Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vpodz...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://vpodzime.fedorapeople.org/oscap-anaconda-addon/oscap-anaconda-addon.spec SRPM URL: http://vpodzime.fedorapeople.org/oscap-anaconda-addon/oscap-anaconda-addon-0.2.tar.gz Description: An addon that integrates OpenSCAP utilities with the Anaconda installer and allows installation of systems following restrictions given by a SCAP content. Fedora Account System Username: vpodzime -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 --- 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 1019436] Review Request: hawaii-widget-styles - Styles for applications using QtQuick Controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019436 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 1019436] Review Request: hawaii-widget-styles - Styles for applications using QtQuick Controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019436 --- 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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 Flavio Percoco fperc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Flavio Percoco fperc...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/FlaPer87/7083329/raw/eb32c8f189c3d4503d8d31b3543e0c0e8a987e98/jq.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ky9fmuzo1ruu3x7/jq-1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021545] New: Review Request: jboss-jaspi-1.1-api - JBoss Java Authentication SPI for Containers 1.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021545 Bug ID: 1021545 Summary: Review Request: jboss-jaspi-1.1-api - JBoss Java Authentication SPI for Containers 1.1 API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgold...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jaspi-1.1-api/1/jboss-jaspi-1.1-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jaspi-1.1-api/1/jboss-jaspi-1.1-api-1.0.0-0.1.Beta1.fc19.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: The Java Authentication SPI for Containers 1.1 API classes Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6083674 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021545] Review Request: jboss-jaspi-1.1-api - JBoss Java Authentication SPI for Containers 1.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021545 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG), ||1016622 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016622 [Bug 1016622] wildfly: Upgrade to 8.0.0.Beta1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021545] Review Request: jboss-jaspi-1.1-api - JBoss Java Authentication SPI for Containers 1.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021545 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889505] Review Request: libkqueue - Userspace implementation of the kqueue event notification mechanism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889505 Eric Radman erad...@entrproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2013-10-21 09:54:34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Ryan O'Hara roh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-10-21 10:01:28 --- Comment #20 from Ryan O'Hara roh...@redhat.com --- I've changed the directory to which the puppet modules are installed to be /usr/share/openstack-puppet/modules/ so that these modules do not interfere with any other puppet modules installed on the system. This package does nothing that isn't already being done in packstack-puppet-modules. This package simply splits-out the puppet modules from packstack, which makes sense. Furthermore, this package contains a colletion of puppet modules that are fixed on a specific repo/commit that is known to work for a given OpenStack release. If there is motivation in the Fedora community to package individual puppet modules, I would not be opposed. Builds for rawhide, el6, f19 and f20 are complete. Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910146] Review Request: python-socksipychain - Python SOCKS/HTTP Proxy module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910146 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021545] Review Request: jboss-jaspi-1.1-api - JBoss Java Authentication SPI for Containers 1.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021545
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/1021545-jboss-jaspi-1.1-api/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
=
[Bug 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||rwhoisd-1.5.9.5-1.fc21 --- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the 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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rwhoisd-1.5.9.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rwhoisd-1.5.9.5-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rwhoisd-1.5.9.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rwhoisd-1.5.9.5-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910146] Review Request: python-socksipychain - Python SOCKS/HTTP Proxy module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910146 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-socksipychain-2.0.12-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-socksipychain-2.0.12-4.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910699] Review Request: pagekite - makes localhost servers visible to the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910699 Bug 910699 depends on bug 910146, which changed state. Bug 910146 Summary: Review Request: python-socksipychain - Python SOCKS/HTTP Proxy module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910146 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED 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 1019770] Review Request: lua-term - lua module for manipulating terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019770
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Right.
[...]
The file at Spec URL and the spec file in the src.rpm are not the same. The
diff is:
-%{lualibdir}/term/core.so
+%attr(644, -, -) %{lualibdir}/term/core.so
The %changelog ought to have mentioned that. ;)
So far, we keep shared libs executable, since that's a requirement for the
automatic -debuginfo generation and stripping done by rpmbuild. We must not
turn them -x in %install. Setting them to -x via %attr works _currently_,
because apparently it sets the file attribute at a sufficiently later point.
Though, it's widely accepted practise to restrict usage of %attr to setting
really special/unusual permissions (e.g. setuid, setgid, g-rx) and owner/group
changes, so special attributes set with %attr really stick out (especially when
using syntax highlighting).
There's nothing in the packaging guidelines about it yet. Better not get used
to
using %attr for ordinary permissions that could be set in %install. In packages
with many more files, if you needed to fix permissions, overusing %attr would
reduce readability of the spec file a lot.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970407] Review Request: mingw-libtheora - Theora Video Compression Codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970407 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Depends on bug 964437 comment 5. $ fedora-review -b 970407 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 970407 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 970407 ERROR: 'Cannot find source rpm URL' To Steve: Requesting fedorapeople.org web space would be a good idea in this case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Upload_Your_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 1019436] Review Request: hawaii-widget-styles - Styles for applications using QtQuick Controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019436 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-10-21 11:10:36 --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Thank you Mario Jon! Imported and built. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #5 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through %{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost with
this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the purpose of
blosc ?)
There's a problem that making the bench binary and the associated
plot-times.py script part of either of the two binary packages is
problematic. If it is moved into the main package, it would start requiring
python, and x86_64 versions would nod be co-installable. If is is installed
as part of the -devel package, again, -devel would require python, and also
not be coinstallable. I think that adding a -bench (or -test) package is the
best option, with
/usr/bin/blosc-bench and /usr/bin/blosc-plot-times.
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file in
%doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
I still had to use %exclude to avoid duplicates. Using %doc bench, for some
reason, also adds *.rst.
So, whatever you decide wrt. the %files problem, please post a new .spec. As
a reviewer, I don't think I should impose my view here, and you should pick
whatever you think best from the maintainer point of view.
New spec online:
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-4.fc19.src.rpm
(Is it ok to overwrite this SPEC file everytime? Old ones are still available
in the SRPMS packages at
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-?.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 1013039] Review Request: java-diffutils - diff utils for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013039 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #7 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) please, report a bug @ http://code.google.com/p/java-diff-utils/issues/ for source package does not include license text(s) http://code.google.com/p/java-diff-utils/issues/detail?id=32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #5)
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through %{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
Are you building this under F20/F21 or F19? You get an unversioned
%_pkgdocdir only in F = 20.
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost
with this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the
purpose of blosc ?)
How the binary itself is compiled probably doesn't matter so much, compared to
how the library is compiled.
There's a problem that making the bench binary and the associated
plot-times.py script part of either of the two binary packages is
problematic. If it is moved into the main package, it would start requiring
python, and x86_64 versions would nod be co-installable. If is is installed
as part of the -devel package, again, -devel would require python, and also
not be coinstallable. I think that adding a -bench (or -test) package is the
best option, with
/usr/bin/blosc-bench and /usr/bin/blosc-plot-times.
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file
in %doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
Maybe just install the script in %{_bindir}, just removing the extension?
I still had to use %exclude to avoid duplicates. Using %doc bench, for some
reason, also adds *.rst.
So, whatever you decide wrt. the %files problem, please post a new .spec. As
a reviewer, I don't think I should impose my view here, and you should pick
whatever you think best from the maintainer point of view.
New spec online:
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-4.fc19.src.rpm
(Is it ok to overwrite this SPEC file everytime? Old ones are still
available in the SRPMS packages at
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-?.fc19.src.rpm)
Yeah, I think that's common practice.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 --- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 814685 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=814685action=edit fedora-review Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1015749 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- No blockers. = 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 1003089] Review Request: glusterfs-openstack-swift - Gluster for Swift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003089 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Big thanks for the review ! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-twig-ctwig Short Description: Extension to improve performance of Twig Owners: remi Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.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 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 --- Comment #9 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 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 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 1021261] Review Request: kipi-plugins-elegant-theme - elegant theme for html export
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021261 Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k...@kupo.se --- Comment #2 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US slideshow - sideshow, slide show, slide-show kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.1-1 ['1.4.0-1.fc19', '1.4.0-1'] kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US slideshow - sideshow, slide show, slide-show kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Oct 20 2013 Sebastian Dyroff sdyr...@fedoraproject.org 1.4.1-1 You are not using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate when you're installing the .desktop file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021091] Review Request: dnsyo - Check DNS against many global DNS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021091 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dnsyo-1.0.2-5.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 910146] Review Request: python-socksipychain - Python SOCKS/HTTP Proxy module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910146 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-socksipychain-2.0.12-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 1021261] Review Request: kipi-plugins-elegant-theme - elegant theme for html export
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021261 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files If a package contains a GUI application..., this isn't a GUI application, so that section is not relevant. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #8 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
s/%{version}// ?
Doesn't work here, but %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name} seems to make it.
Thanks.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #5)
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through
%{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
Are you building this under F20/F21 or F19? You get an unversioned
%_pkgdocdir only in F = 20.
F19, indeed! Thanks.
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be
able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would
be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost
with this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the
purpose of blosc ?)
How the binary itself is compiled probably doesn't matter so much, compared
to how the library is compiled.
My bad, I had in mind the previous Makefile which was compiling directly
against the blosc code.
Now, it is too bad that blosc is compiled with %{?_smp_mflags}, because part of
the power of blosc is provided by these SSE optimization. (checking how much
would be interesting.)
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file
in %doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
Maybe just install the script in %{_bindir}, just removing the extension?
Yes, done.
Also, blosc-plot-times requires python-matplotlib%{?_isa}. I thought that
requiring it would be ok, but rpmlint complains (explicit-lib-dependency). i
guess this can be ignored?
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-5.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 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-twig-ctwig-1.14.1-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-twig-ctwig-1.14.1-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-twig-ctwig-1.14.1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-twig-ctwig-1.14.1-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015749] Review Request: php-twig-ctwig - Extension to improve performance of Twig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015749 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-twig-ctwig-1.14.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-twig-ctwig-1.14.1-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021261] Review Request: kipi-plugins-elegant-theme - elegant theme for html export
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021261 --- Comment #4 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #3) Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ Guidelines#Desktop_files If a package contains a GUI application..., this isn't a GUI application, so that section is not relevant. Ah, yes of course. My bad. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Jan, please add the fedora‑cvs? flag! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #8)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
s/%{version}// ?
Doesn't work here, but %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name} seems to make
it. Thanks.
This is just a fallback for build systems with old rpm. That's why it
is defined with -%{version}, to retain historical behaviour on old systems,
but allowing to use the same %spec. It should be conditional, so that you
get the new behaviour when enabled by the system.
The sed is still wrong, it's backwards...
If plot-times is in %{_bindir}, then %{_pkgdocdir}/bench only contains one
file (bench.c), so maybe it's no longer necessary to have a separate directory,
and bench.c could be installed in %{_pkgdocdir} directly?
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #5)
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through
%{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
Are you building this under F20/F21 or F19? You get an unversioned
%_pkgdocdir only in F = 20.
F19, indeed! Thanks.
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find
out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be
able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it
would be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc
library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost
with this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the
purpose of blosc ?)
How the binary itself is compiled probably doesn't matter so much, compared
to how the library is compiled.
My bad, I had in mind the previous Makefile which was compiling directly
against the blosc code.
Now, it is too bad that blosc is compiled with %{?_smp_mflags}, because part
of the power of blosc is provided by these SSE optimization. (checking how
much would be interesting.)
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file
in %doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
Maybe just install the script in %{_bindir}, just removing the extension?
Yes, done.
Also, blosc-plot-times requires python-matplotlib%{?_isa}. I thought that
requiring it would be ok, but rpmlint complains (explicit-lib-dependency). i
guess this can be ignored?
Actually, blosc-plot-times is by itself noarch, so I think it's fine with
whatever python-matplotlib, so %{?_isa} can be removed.
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-5.fc19.src.rpm
cp -pr %{_pkgdocdir}/bench/plot-speeds.py
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/%{name}-plot-times
This looks wrong.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #10 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9)
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #8)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
s/%{version}// ?
Doesn't work here, but %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name} seems to make
it. Thanks.
This is just a fallback for build systems with old rpm. That's why it
is defined with -%{version}, to retain historical behaviour on old systems,
but allowing to use the same %spec. It should be conditional, so that you
get the new behaviour when enabled by the system.
Ok, I was trying to have the same behaviour on F19, which wasn't right.
The sed is still wrong, it's backwards...
Fixed.
Also, blosc-plot-times requires python-matplotlib%{?_isa}. I thought that
requiring it would be ok, but rpmlint complains (explicit-lib-dependency). i
guess this can be ignored?
Actually, blosc-plot-times is by itself noarch, so I think it's fine with
whatever python-matplotlib, so %{?_isa} can be removed.
Done.
cp -pr %{_pkgdocdir}/bench/plot-speeds.py
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/%{name}-plot-times
This looks wrong.
Indeed, remains of the link. Fixed.
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-6.fc19.src.rpm
Thanks for your patience.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #62 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- i have set a find .. command in prep section and the -D_GUREVISION_ option in the command line, is this ok ? Yes, that looks right. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002170] Review Request: morfologik-stemming - Morfologik stemming library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002170 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/morfologik-stemming.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/morfologik-stemming-1.7.2-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 1.7.2 -- 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 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #16 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- What he said :) Also, no need for the mock output, it's not very useful (other than noting that it builds). I'll do a full review after the above is 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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
... the Requires should be more exact (for -devel)
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Still missing, I think.
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/blosc-bench 0775L
Should be 0755. I suppose that this is inherited from the environment, I have
umask 0002. Probably 'install' instead of cp would be better, since it sets the
permissions to u=rwx,go=rx.
Rpmlint (rest of output)
---
Checking: blosc-1.2.3-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-devel-1.2.3-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-bench-1.2.3-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-1.2.3-6.fc19.src.rpm
blosc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
The dependency is OK. python-matplotlib only provides
python-matplotlib = 1.3.0-1.fc20
python-matplotlib(x86-64) = 1.3.0-1.fc20
and the non-isa one is more adequate.
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-plot-times
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-bench
blosc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint blosc-devel blosc blosc-bench
blosc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blosc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/blosc-bench 0775L
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-plot-times
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-bench
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
Can be ignored.
I think that except those two issues noted at the top, package is OK.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #17 from Reiner Rottmann rei...@rottmann.it --- Thanks for the comments. Made the changes and uploaded the following files: Spec URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.17-2.fc19.src.rpm RPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.17-2.fc19.noarch.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 1021160] Review Request: doge - wow very terminal doge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021160 Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #7 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- The correct URL is https://pypi.python.org/pypi/doge/ A valid summary would be A simple motd script based on the slightly retarded but very funny doge meme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007247] Review Request: php-phpunit-phpcov - TextUI frontend for PHP_CodeCoverage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007247 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018541] Review Request: libreplaygain - Gain analysis library from Musepack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018541 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libreplaygain-0-0.1.20110810svn475.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016200] Review Request: (unorphan) global - Source code tag system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016200 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package global-6.2.9-3.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing global-6.2.9-3.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19608/global-6.2.9-3.fc20 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 972480] Review Request: SkyX - Photorealistic sky simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972480 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- SkyX-0.4-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982255] Re-Review Request: labyrinth - A light weight mind mapping tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982255 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package labyrinth-0.6-3.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing labyrinth-0.6-3.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19629/labyrinth-0.6-3.fc20 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 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #18 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- What's your FAS account name? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #19 from Reiner Rottmann rei...@rottmann.it --- rrottmann -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #12 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11)
... the Requires should be more exact (for -devel)
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Still missing, I think.
Fixed, thanks.
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/blosc-bench
0775L
Should be 0755. I suppose that this is inherited from the environment, I
have umask 0002. Probably 'install' instead of cp would be better, since it
sets the permissions to u=rwx,go=rx.
Right!
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-7.fc19.src.rpm
New rmplint output:
rpmlint -vv blosc-1.2.3-7.fc19.src.rpm blosc-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-devel-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm blosc-bench-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-debuginfo-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm blosc.spec
blosc.src: I: checking
blosc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc.src: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc.src: I: checking-url http://blosc.org/sources/1.2.3/blosc-1.2.3.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
blosc.x86_64: I: checking
blosc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-devel.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blosc-bench.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory
blosc-bench.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-plot-times
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-bench
blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
/home/tnorth/rpmbuild/SPECS/blosc.spec: I: checking-url
http://blosc.org/sources/1.2.3/blosc-1.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Thanks everyone. I am a bit rusty, it's been a long time :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 Jakub Ruzicka jruzi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #7 from Jakub Ruzicka jruzi...@redhat.com --- * License breakdown is fixed * %check was added and works for me * man page was added and looks good * python isn't required any more * just flex and bison are required instead of their -devel version If %check is x86 conditional, shouldn't valgrind BuildRequires be as well? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #20 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- - The first show stopper is the license for apps/extensions/htmlheader/biz/JSMin.php: * Copyright (c) 2002 Douglas Crockford (www.crockford.com) * * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of * this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in * the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to * use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies * of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do * so, subject to the following conditions: * * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all * copies or substantial portions of the Software. * * The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. This last clause is unenforceable and is as such forbidden from Fedora. See bug #455407. - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Add %doc *.txt to %files to take care of this and ship the readmes. Also I don't think the License field is correct (even excluding the JSMin.php issue). - Looks like it bundles apps/modules/recaptcha/external/google/recaptchalib.php. That will need to be packaged separately. - Remove %clean completely, it is not needed Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 Jan Lieskovsky jlies...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Jan Lieskovsky jlies...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: scap-security-guide Short Description: Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats Owners: jlieskov Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: jlieskov pvrabec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #14 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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 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 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #63 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #61) find -type d -name .svn | xargs rm -rf .svn Can be find -type d -name .svn -delete did not work find -type d -name .svn -delete find: cannot delete './.svn': Directory not empty -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985967] Review Request: python-arc - Autotest RPC Client libraries and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985967
Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||opensou...@till.name
--- Comment #13 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name ---
- The file LICENSE is missing from %doc
- Why is there 'Requires: python' - it should not be needed
- Please use %{__python2} instead of %{__python}:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
As written in comment:10, please perform informal reviews of other packages and
post links to them here, i.e. review other package submissions to show that you
know the guidelines. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #64 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.3.6-15.svn1885.fc19.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Oct 21 2013 Martin Gansser marti...@fedoraproject.org - 0.3.6-15.svn1885 - added command to remove .svn dirs - added %%cmake option for svn revision -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #21 from Reiner Rottmann rei...@rottmann.it --- Ok, I understand the issue. I make contact with the author whether it is possible to remove parts that inflict license issues during packaging - or even better in the APF release. As the framework is very modular, I think that would be an option. Thanks for pointing out the licensing issues. I took the information from the download page where I got the source file. Seems like the license was migrated to the LGPL and the text changed on the APF homepage. I will ask the author whether the transition is complete now and adapt the license in the spec file. Thank you for the fast 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 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246 Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed: What|Removed |Added CC||opensou...@till.name Depends On||975266 --- Comment #7 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name --- Can this review be closed, because of bug 975266 and others to follow? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975266 [Bug 975266] Review Request: cmap-japan - Japanese character mapping resources from Adobe's cmap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975266] Review Request: cmap-japan - Japanese character mapping resources from Adobe's cmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975266 Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||859246 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246 [Bug 859246] Review Request: cmap - Adobe pdf character mapping data -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975266] Review Request: cmap-japan - Japanese character mapping resources from Adobe's cmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975266 Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed: What|Removed |Added CC||opensou...@till.name Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #5 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name --- According to the other bugs, Ben is not yet sponsored. Btw. Ping Tibbs, you intended to review this one. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
