[Bug 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096 --- Comment #24 from John Heidemann --- Thank you for the suggestions in comment 23. I will update the spec again. I thought I had picked up all prior comments, but maybe not. A couple of things though: - yes I do want to support EL5; we have some old boxes here - wrt IO::Compress::, etc. not being reuqired at build time: they should be exercised in the test suites I will post an updated spec when I can check all these out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) --- you should not change flag fedora-review to ? , it should be done by the official package reviewer for this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020014] Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 Johan Swensson changed: What|Removed |Added CC|opensou...@till.name| --- Comment #6 from Johan Swensson --- Hm, come of think of it I probably should have named this package python-pylcdsysinfo. I'll wait for feedback before doing anything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones --- FYI https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Doxygen_footers Rather than wait for upstream to release a new tarball (if the author has in fact released it!), you could use https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github if you think there is a benefit. Please don't use %epochs unless you have to. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021733] Review Request: python-SecretStorage - Python module for secure storing of passwords and secrets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021733
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4)
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>
> ---> License is missing in -doc. The -doc sub-pkg should have
> `%doc changelog LICENSE README build/sphinx/html` (without that
> '/*' suffixed) instead of `%doc build/sphinx/html/*`. So it
> will pick-up all docs && carry a html-subdir.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree.
I think doc package should only contains docs, but no need to ship changelog
LICENSE README anymore. Besides I think keeping /* will let users enter the dir
and see docs immediately but not enter a html folder again.
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>
> ---> there is a tests-subdir in tarball. You should BR:
> python-nose, python3-nose and run the corresponding
> `nosetests` within %check.
Because tests will fail to test.
1. Simply use
nosetests-%{python_version}
Failed because ImportError: No module named secretstorage
2. Then I did a tricks:
PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python_sitelib} nosetests-%{python_version}
This time real failures are coming:
---
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.NGiSNR
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd SecretStorage-1.0.0
+ pushd tests
~/rpmbuild/BUILD/SecretStorage-1.0.0/tests ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/SecretStorage-1.0.0
+
PYTHONPATH=/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages
+ nosetests-2.7
....E
==
ERROR: test_create_empty_item (test_collection.CollectionTest)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILD/SecretStorage-1.0.0/tests/test_collection.py",
line 28, in test_create_empty_item
item = self.collection.create_item('', {}, b'')
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/collection.py",
line 120, in create_item
self.ensure_not_locked()
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/collection.py",
line 55, in ensure_not_locked
raise LockedException('Collection is locked!')
LockedException: Collection is locked!
==
ERROR: test_label (test_collection.CollectionTest)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILD/SecretStorage-1.0.0/tests/test_collection.py",
line 33, in test_label
self.collection.set_label('Hello!')
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/collection.py",
line 109, in set_label
self.ensure_not_locked()
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/collection.py",
line 55, in ensure_not_locked
raise LockedException('Collection is locked!')
LockedException: Collection is locked!
==
ERROR: test suite for
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/suite.py", line 208, in run
self.setUp()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/suite.py", line 291, in setUp
self.setupContext(ancestor)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/suite.py", line 314, in
setupContext
try_run(context, names)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nose/util.py", line 469, in try_run
return func()
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILD/SecretStorage-1.0.0/tests/test_compat_functions.py",
line 23, in setUpClass
ATTRIBUTES, PASSWORD)
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/__init__.py",
line 96, in create_item
collection.unlock()
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/collection.py",
line 70, in unlock
return exec_prompt_glib(self.bus, prompt)[0]
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/util.py",
line 85, in exec_prompt_glib
exec_prompt(bus, prompt, callback)
File
"/home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.i386/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/secretstorage/util.py",
line 73, in exec_prompt
prompt_iface.connect_to_signal('Completed', new_callback)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dbus/proxies.py", line 544, in
connect_to_signal
dbus
[Bug 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen --- (Still curious what you want to use this for in Fedora?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen --- The package looks standard and fine to me, so I am approving this. 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 1008772] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
Drop by comments:
1. Requires: hidapi = %{version}-%{release}
-->
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
2. %package -n hidapi-devel
-->
%package devel
%files -n hidapi-devel
-->
%files devel
3. %dir %{_includedir}/hidapi
%{_includedir}/hidapi/hidapi.h
-->
%{_includedir}/hidapi
4. Tiny question, why not use this URL as Github has offered such function:
https://github.com/downloads/signal11/hidapi/hidapi-0.7.0.zip
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008772] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1022317 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022317 [Bug 1022317] Review Request: mingw-hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022317] Review Request: mingw-hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022317 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1008772 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772 [Bug 1008772] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022317] New: Review Request: mingw-hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022317 Bug ID: 1022317 Summary: Review Request: mingw-hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: s...@techie.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.techie.net/~talbert/hidapi/mingw-hidapi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.techie.net/~talbert/hidapi/mingw-hidapi-0.7.0-1.a88c724.fc19.src.rpm Description: Description: HIDAPI is a multi-platform library which allows an application to interface with USB and Bluetooth HID-class devices on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and Mac OS X. On Linux, either the hidraw or the libusb back-end can be used. There are trade-offs and the functionality supported is slightly different. Fedora Account System Username: swt2c Koji Build Task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6089044 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015263] Review request: lz4 Extremely fast compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|lz4-r106-3.fc18 |lz4-r106-3.fc19 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- lz4-r106-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 949895] Review Request: python3-bsddb3 - Python3 bindings for BerkleyDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2013-10-08 05:25:42 |2013-10-22 23:31:22 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python3-bsddb3-6.0.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015263] Review request: lz4 Extremely fast compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||lz4-r106-3.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-10-22 23:29:43 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- lz4-r106-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 726989] Review Request: ipwatchd - IP conflict detection tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726989 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- ipwatchd-1.2.1-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng --- Help submmited: https://github.com/x42/libltc/issues/8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #21 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- Regarding the second, setgroups is not a POSIX standard function, so will need configure checks at least. It also seems less preferable than initgroups. Both of these require _BSD_SOURCE and/or -lbsd-compat on some platforms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- > 2: I haven't found any recommendations in guidelines. Do these macros > violate any rules or anything? No. But now we dont use it. As these are often used in old RPM, I will have a special feeling when seeing these. BTW using 2 chars rm instead of 6 chars rm macro can help save your place. > 5: As for `useradd/groupadd` stuff, I've seen it in postfix and exim > packages. I think this dependency is obvious but I can add it anyway if > needed (?) They belong to shadow-utils, so should be required. You can use any type you want. I prefer shadow style. > 6: Why not? It won't be installed automatically, and moreover, the packaging > guidelines mention and don't forbid them. Hmm.. Welcome ideas from others. > 9: As for ListenStream: perhaps, but I'm not sure whether this behavior > fully supported due OpenSMTPD portable nature (needs more investigation). I > provide more common systemd file. Ok. I will ask some systemd upstream folks. > 10: It's already there, please see `opensmtpd.service` in source RPM > provided. Sorry, I shouldn't paste this line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #20 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- Regarding the first patch, it breaks running from the build directory... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #19 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- The firmware blobs are only needed for specific devices; I doubt most users would want them to be installed by default/requirement. README.FPGA should have links to the firmware authors' websites with the binaries. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #18 from Paul Wouters --- oops. I guess we all missed upstream had released new versions :) I've packaged it up. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.3.0-1.fc19.src.rpm There are two patches now. One for rpath and one for the chdir+setgroups calls. Luke: you can find the two patches here: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.3.0-configure.patch ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.3.0-privs.patch But I also notice the bitstreams firmware blobs are no longer shipped. While I see the source for them, I'm unfamiliar with how to compile those. I guess I can package it in this package as blobs, like it was. Or make a separate package and make this package depend on it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013037] Review Request: otf2 - Open Trace Format 2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- Okay, looks great. The only remaining possible issue I see is this comment from rpmlint: otf2.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/otf2-config I don't know if that is true or not. Is this tool useful for more than retrieving CFLAGS and 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 1016770] Review Request: nodejs-nan - Native Abstractions for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016770 Yohan Graterol changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yohangratero...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Yohan Graterol --- Don't built :S in Mock... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014848] Review Request: python-mandrill - A CLI client and API library for Mandrill email service.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014848 Yohan Graterol changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Yohan Graterol --- 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 1014848] Review Request: python-mandrill - A CLI client and API library for Mandrill email service.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014848
--- Comment #5 from Yohan Graterol ---
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.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justifie
[Bug 1014848] Review Request: python-mandrill - A CLI client and API library for Mandrill email service.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014848 Yohan Graterol changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius --- The spec "BuildRequires: doxygen" but the package doesn't build nor install the doxygen docs. (If you'd build them (make dox), you'd hit a bug in Fedora's doxygen, which uses non-multilib compliant html-footers. One work-around to this issue can be found in my gumbo-parser.spec in Fedora's git). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #17 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- Why 3.1.3? That's relatively ancient, has known bugs, and unsupported.. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 --- Comment #15 from tosca --- Thanks for the message. In case you intend to do something about this, I'm now in Fedora 19. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- Hmm.. You should request upstream to provide 1.1.2 download if possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng --- This package needs many patches to be built, not so simple IMO here on my machine. (In reply to tosca from comment #12) > Just discovered the existence of Photivo and would like to install it under > Fedora 17, but yum reported no package with this name. > Do you intend to provide it quite soon? > Thanks. I will post a review later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Paul Wouters --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bfgminer Short Description: A BitCoin miner Owners: pwouters 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 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Please package 1.1.2.(https://github.com/x42/libltc/releases) Please remove Requires: pkgconfig in -devel subpkg. Then I will run again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #15 from Paul Wouters --- I removed the rpath, although unfortunately I had to resort to the chrpath method as removng in from Makefile.in weirdly changes the .la files to be .lai and fail and I couldn't figure out why. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.1.3-3.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 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Version|19 |rawhide Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- 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 1015701] Review Request: amiri-fonts - Arabic font form amirifont.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015701 --- Comment #13 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- Zbigniew :: This font couldn't built by FontForge, It built by fork of it found here: https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools That what Khaled Hosny (maintainer of Amiri complex font) said. So I tried to build sortsmill, but it need gnulib to build. I surprised that gnulib isn't found in Fedora repo !! So I worked hard to package it #1022283 --- Parag :: Thank you for your attention, I did 7 package reveiw bugs :: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=Package%20Review&email1=moceap%40hotmail.com&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=1829241&query_format=advanced GnuLib is the last one I did to package sortsmill to package Amiri fonts :) Really I want your sponsor to push these packages (and others) into Fedora. --- Kind Regards Mosaab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Mosaab Alzoubi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Alias||GNULIB 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 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Mosaab Alzoubi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] New: Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 Bug ID: 1022283 Summary: Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: moc...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131022.git25fb29a-1.oji.fc19.src.rpm Description: The GNU portability library is a macro system and C declarations and definitions for commonly-used API elements and abstracted system behaviors. It can be used to improve portability and other functionality in your programs. Fedora Account System Username: moceap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #3 from Denis Fateyev --- Thanks for reviewing. 1,3,4,7,8 are fixed, packages and updated spec are available on the same location from the first post. 2: I haven't found any recommendations in guidelines. Do these macros violate any rules or anything? 5: As for `useradd/groupadd` stuff, I've seen it in postfix and exim packages. I think this dependency is obvious but I can add it anyway if needed (?) 6: Why not? It won't be installed automatically, and moreover, the packaging guidelines mention and don't forbid them. 9: As for ListenStream: perhaps, but I'm not sure whether this behavior fully supported due OpenSMTPD portable nature (needs more investigation). I provide more common systemd file. 10: It's already there, please see `opensmtpd.service` in source RPM provided. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019453] Review Request: sddm-kcm - SDDM KDE configuration module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019453 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler --- According to the guidelines, Version for completely unreleased packages should be 0, not 0.0.0. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014738] Review Request: python-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014738 --- Comment #9 from Sergio Pascual --- Updated RPM Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/python-astropy.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/python-astropy-0.2.4-4.fc20.src.rpm * pytest in fedora >= 20 breaks the tests, I have disabled the tests for those https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/astropy-dev/Otddr6bWGhQ * enabled python3 package (the docs are copied though, there's a bug in python3 sphinx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014505) * C headers go to a -devel subpackage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014738] Review Request: python-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014738 --- Comment #8 from Sergio Pascual --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #3) > Requires: /usr/bin/xmllint > > Why not use libxml2 instead of this hardcoded path? If you prefer, you might > even use a simple "xmllint". Paths can change in the future, but rpm has the > capability to find xmllint anyway. I didn't know RPM could do that... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004231] Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231 Nils Philippsen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nphil...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nphil...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022255] New: Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 Bug ID: 1022255 Summary: Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library Product: Fedora Version: 19 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nphil...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 1007099 Spec URL: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/libltc/libltc.spec Spec URL: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/libltc/libltc-1.1.1-0.1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Linear (or Longitudinal) Timecode (LTC) is an encoding of timecode data as a Manchester-Biphase encoded audio signal. The audio signal is commonly recorded on a VTR track or other storage media. libltc provides functionality to encode and decode LTC from/to timecode, including SMPTE date support. NB: I'll keep the release number as 0.x during the review and will bump it to 1 during import after the review is finished. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007099 [Bug 1007099] Review Request: ardour3 - Digital Audio Workstation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018492] Review Request: vcsh - Version Control System for $HOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492 Dridi Boukelmoune changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Dridi Boukelmoune --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: vcsh Short Description: Version Control System for $HOME Owners: dridi Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018492] Review Request: vcsh - Version Control System for $HOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492 --- Comment #11 from Dridi Boukelmoune --- For your information, I have submitted the patch: Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/vcsh.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/vcsh-1.20130909-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021721] Review Request: python-salttesting - Testing library for SaltStack projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021721
--- Comment #4 from Erik Johnson ---
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1)
> Your package bundles a prebuilt egg, please remove it before building the
> package:
> rm -rf %{_realname}.egg-info
> See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs.
>
Done, I added these lines to the %build step. Links from the initial posts
should be updated with the new specs and SRPM.
> The Python macros have been changed recently to be more future-proof:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
> %{__python} --> %{__python2}
> Moreover, %{python_sitelib} should be %{python2_sitelib} although this is
> not mentioned in the guidelines. For EPEL6 try to run the following command
> to see if it is also available there:
> $ rpm --eval %{python2_sitelib}
>
erik@virtucentos:~% cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.4 (Final)
erik@virtucentos:~% rpm --eval %{python2_sitelib}
%{python2_sitelib}
erik@virtucentos:~% rpm --eval %{python_sitelib}
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages
erik@virtucentos:~% rpm --eval %{__python2}
%{__python2}
erik@virtucentos:~% rpm --eval %{__python}
/usr/bin/python
I did this both before and after running updates on my build VM as I hadn't
intalled any updates in a while, and I got the same result.
I also added the BuildRequires as recommended by Johan.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021721] Review Request: python-salttesting - Testing library for SaltStack projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021721 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to Johan Swensson from comment #2) > You're missing a BuildRequires: python-devel2 > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires It has to be python2-devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021721] Review Request: python-salttesting - Testing library for SaltStack projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021721 Johan Swensson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k...@kupo.se --- Comment #2 from Johan Swensson --- You're missing a BuildRequires: python-devel2 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- scap-security-guide-0.1-3.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 1021994] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop - Sphinx extension cheeseshop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021994 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop-0.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 979767] Review Request: kapow - A punch clock program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979767 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- kapow-1.4.4.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015752] Review Request: qt5-qtx11extras - Qt5 - X11 support library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015752 --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter --- FYI, # http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1005482 ExcludeArch: ppc64 ppc was fixed, so the ExcludeArch can be removed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021721] Review Request: python-salttesting - Testing library for SaltStack projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021721
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann ---
Your package bundles a prebuilt egg, please remove it before building the
package:
rm -rf %{_realname}.egg-info
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs.
The Python macros have been changed recently to be more future-proof:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
%{__python} --> %{__python2}
Moreover, %{python_sitelib} should be %{python2_sitelib} although this is not
mentioned in the guidelines. For EPEL6 try to run the following command to see
if it is also available there:
$ rpm --eval %{python2_sitelib}
(In reply to Erik Johnson from comment #0)
> Note that I have included two spec files in this review request, one without
> the lines which are unnecessary for non-EL5 builds, and one that will be
> used for EL5 only.
>
Perfectly! This way we don't have to entrain all the obsolete definitions and
conditions through the newer EPEL and Fedora releases.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021164] Review Request: general-purpose-preprocessor - Customizable language-agnostic preprocessor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021164 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: gpp - |Review Request: |Customizable|general-purpose-preprocesso |language-agnostic |r - Customizable |preprocessor|language-agnostic ||preprocessor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #30 from Thibault North --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: blosc Short Description: A high performance compressor optimized for binary data Owners: tnorth zbyszek 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 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #69 from MartinKG --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: guayadeque Short Description: Audio player and organizer Owners: martinkg 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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #29 from Thibault North --- Correct URL : http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-9.fc16.src.rpm Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #68 from Antonio Trande --- 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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #28 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Seems to build properly everywhere: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087645 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087646 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087652 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087654 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 852898] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt --- Normally, the sponsor must be the reviewer of a new contributor's first package review request. [ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer ] The practical experience, however, is that there is room for negotiatons and handling it differently. That is, the sponsor may agree to letting somebody else taking over the review, but observing the process and adding guidance where necessary. In this ticket, the package has been approved on 2012-10-02, but there seems to be disagreement about the packaging, and a SCM request has not been filed yet. No surprise it hasn't been built officially. [...] Running "fedora-review -b 852898" for this ticket fails building for Rawhide: … pdflatex refman make: pdflatex: Command not found … [...] I suggest withdrawing the approval and taking another look, or letting the sponsor perform the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 --- Comment #67 from MartinKG --- Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.3.6-16.svn1885.fc19.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Oct 22 2013 Martin Gansser - 0.3.6-16.svn1885 - added correct license type - removed tabs in the spec file - added %%desktop-database because desktop entry has a 'MimeType key. - removing. svn directory will now used before building the tarball -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #17 from Fedora Update System --- scap-security-guide-0.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scap-security-guide-0.1-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- scap-security-guide-0.1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scap-security-guide-0.1-3.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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 Fedora Update System 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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- scap-security-guide-0.1-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scap-security-guide-0.1-3.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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #27 from Thibault North --- The above kind of reminds me the motivation I had to stay away from review requests/working on packages... (see BZ#852898) The release type is set to "Debug" instead of "Release". Plus, the bench/ was compiled twice (once by cmake, once by a call to make). This should fix the flag issues. http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-9.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 1021733] Review Request: python-SecretStorage - Python module for secure storing of passwords and secrets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021733
--- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
= Review report for python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1 =
Package has issues. :(
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[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". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1021733-python-
SecretStorage/licensecheck.txt
---> License-tag is fine. :)
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
---> License is missing in -doc. The -doc sub-pkg should have
`%doc changelog LICENSE README build/sphinx/html` (without that
'/*' suffixed) instead of `%doc build/sphinx/html/*`. So it
will pick-up all docs && carry a html-subdir.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> issues are present.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-SecretStorage , python-SecretStorage-doc
---> not needed
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contai
[Bug 894605] Review Request: coin-or-Bonmin - Basic Open-source Nonlinear Mixed INteger programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894605 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- 1.7.2 was released 7 days ago. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #26 from Michael Schwendt --- > Great now you are threatening me once more Not once. > Don't you realize how hostile and agressive you are? No, I don't. In this ticket I disagree with you about the docdirs, but that's no reason to attack me personally, and if you draw a connection to disagreements external to this ticket, that's your personal issue. I don't fight. I voice my opinion. It's you who would like to find a way to silence me. You've mentioned "considering further consequence". Consulting the CWG for help and a neutral opinion is an idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #66 from Brendan Jones --- I would have expected you to simply remove the .svn director when you are building the tarball to keep the SRPM small. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894605] Review Request: coin-or-Bonmin - Basic Open-source Nonlinear Mixed INteger programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894605 Bug 894605 depends on bug 894604, which changed state. Bug 894604 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894609] Review Request: coin-or-OS - Optimization Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894609 Bug 894609 depends on bug 894604, which changed state. Bug 894604 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894604] Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-22 11:21:52 --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng --- No builds for f18/f19, no problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894606] Review Request: coin-or-Couenne -Couenne, an exact solver for nonconvex MINLPs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894606 Bug 894606 depends on bug 894604, which changed state. Bug 894604 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021919] Review Request: simarrange - STL 2D plate packer with collision simulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021919 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- 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 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975318] Review Request: libodb-sqlite - SQLite ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975318] Review Request: libodb-sqlite - SQLite ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853553] Review Request: guayadeque - Audio player and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553
--- Comment #65 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains
desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in guayadeque
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
- Please, fix the License tag.
- Some files (probably the most common like mp3) can't be played because of
some
GStreamer plugins not available in the Fedora repositories.
You can also consider the RPMFusion repositories.
- rpmlint advises of a mixed use of space and tabs in the .spec file:
guayadeque.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
17)
Please, fix it.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Public domain", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)". 160 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/853553-guayadeque/licensecheck.txt
The compilation involves files with three different licenses.
GPLv3+ and BSD and LGPLv2+
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 n
[Bug 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020014] Review Request: pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net 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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC|rc040...@freenet.de | --- Comment #25 from Ralf Corsepius --- Get me outa here, I am unable to share a room with Mr. Schwendt. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #24 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #23) > > to consider further consequence. > > Perhaps the Fedora CWG may be helpful in this case? Great now you are threatening me once more - Don't you realize how hostile and agressive you are? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013037] Review Request: otf2 - Open Trace Format 2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037 --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > I will take this review. > > Package Review > == > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > === > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Added. > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) > or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 10557440 bytes in 163 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > This warning is because the documentation ends up in BOTH the main package > and the -doc subpackage. You will need to add %exclude lines to both the > main %files and %files doc to make sure each file goes into only one of the > two packages. Oops, fixed. > - This is extremely minor, but the jinja patch applies with offsets: > > patching file Makefile.in > Hunk #3 succeeded at 1209 (offset 48 lines). > Hunk #4 succeeded at 1262 (offset 48 lines). > > and there is also a typo in the %patch0 application: jijna2 -> jinja2 Good catch, rebased. > - On the subject of bundled libraries, I see that you removed jinja2, but > what > about the rest of the code under vendor/common? What is its status? That is all common upstream configuration files for their projects. Used for building. > - Should jinja2 be a Requires? Yes, added. > - I am confused by the python code. It is only present in the -devel > package. > I don't know what it does, so this is probably just my ignorance speaking, > but are you sure it is never needed at runtime? Used by otf2-template, moved to base package. > - There is no Requires on an appropriate python abi. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes Added requires python-jinja2 should handle this I believe now. > - There is no BR on an appropriate version of python-devel. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires As above. > - Consider adding a %check script Upstream told me the magic incantation need to enable the tests. Added. Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/otf2.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/otf2-1.2.1-3.fc19.src.rpm * Mon Oct 21 2013 Orion Poplawski - 1.2.1-3 - Add BR python2-devel - Add Requires jinja2 - Exclude docs from main package - Rebase jinja2 patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975318] Review Request: libodb-sqlite - SQLite ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Dave Johansen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libodb-sqlite Short Description: SQLite ODB runtime library from Code Synthesis Owners: daveisfera Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Dave Johansen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libodb-pgsql Short Description: PostgreSQL ODB runtime library from Code Synthesis Owners: daveisfera Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Dave Johansen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libodb-mysql Short Description: MySQL ODB runtime library from Code Synthesis Owners: daveisfera Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Dave Johansen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libodb-qt Short Description: Qt ODB runtime library from Code Synthesis Owners: daveisfera Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Dave Johansen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libodb-boost Short Description: Boost ODB runtime library from Code Synthesis Owners: daveisfera Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: peter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021199] Review Request: aspell-fi - Finnish dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021199 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net 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 1021244] Review Request: aspell-la - Latin dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021244 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net 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
