[Bug 892335] Review Request: AudioCuesheetEditor - Audio Cuesheet Editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892335
--- Comment #35 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
= Review report for AudioCuesheetEditor-1.0.3-1 =
This review report has been made from manually downloaded spec / srpm as
announced in comment #28.
Package has severe issues. :(
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
- specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog:
Tue Jun 16 2013 Sven Baus s.bau...@gmx.net 1.0.3-1
Tue Jun 09 2013 Sven Baus s.bau...@gmx.net 1.0.3-1
Sun Apr 04 2013 Sven Baus s.bau...@gmx.net 0.3.0-1
--- please fix those bogus-dates to existing ones, like either
changing the day matching the date or vice-versa.
- wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding:
/usr/share/doc/AudioCuesheetEditor/LICENCE.TXT
/usr/share/doc/AudioCuesheetEditor/KNOWN_ISSUES.TXT
/usr/share/doc/AudioCuesheetEditor/CHANGELOG.TXT
/usr/share/doc/AudioCuesheetEditor/README.TXT
--- please fix this as explained on:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
I'd recommend using this script during %prep, which preserves the
original file's timestamp, too:
for _file in '*.TXT'
do
sed -i.orig -e 's!\r$!!g' ${_file} \
touch -r ${_file}.orig ${_file} \
rm -rf ${_file}.orig
done
= 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:
*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 5 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/review-
AudioCuesheetEditor/licensecheck.txt
--- License-tag is fine. :)
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/AudioCuesheetEditor
--- dir is created by the package itself, but not owned
as explained below.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/AudioCuesheetEditor
--- remove the '/*' from `/usr/lib/%{name}/*` in %files. This
will make the rpm own `/usr/lib/%{name}` with all it's
contents.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
--- compiler-flags don't get exported properly. Add
`%configure ||:` at the very beginning of %build.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
--- bogus-dates are present. as explained above.
[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]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
--- hardcoding `/usr/lib/` is intentional on Mono / C# based
packages, as explained by the Mono-guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono#File_Locations
[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.
--- debuginfo-pkg is empty, because you strip the exec-perms
from the build binary. make sure the binary keeps it's
exec-perms, please, so rpmbuild's debuginfo automagic will
properly find and extract all debugging symbols from build.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- severe 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
[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 #25 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- (In reply to John Heidemann from comment #24) 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 Alright, keep the buildroot and the related things in there then. - wrt IO::Compress::, etc. not being reuqired at build time: they should be exercised in the test suites Those are only loaded in the _enable_compression() sub which doesn't seem to be called during the test phase. But I might be wrong. I will post an updated spec when I can check all these out. 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 1018393] Review Request: lv2-artyfx-plugins - a collection of LV2 audio plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018393 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-artyfx-plugins-0-1.1.20131011git918613f.fc20.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-artyfx-plugins.spec Thanks. License file added. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022827] New: Review Request: rubygem-http-cookie - Ruby library to handle HTTP Cookies based on RFC 6265
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022827 Bug ID: 1022827 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-http-cookie - Ruby library to handle HTTP Cookies based on RFC 6265 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mtas...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-http-cookie.spec SRPM URL: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/mechanize-related/rubygem-http-cookie-1.0.2-1.fc.src.rpm Description: HTTP::Cookie is a Ruby library to handle HTTP Cookies based on RFC 6265. It has with security, standards compliance and compatibility in mind, to behave just the same as today's major web browsers. It has builtin support for the legacy cookies.txt and the latest cookies.sqlite formats of Mozilla Firefox, and its modular API makes it easy to add support for a new backend store. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka Koji scratch build: F-21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6092764 F-20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6092762 F-19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6092763 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) It is nice to be able to use it without bundling in the sources: No. This is not the way gnulib is supposed to be used. gnulib files are supposed to be updated from git and the results to be bundled inside of a source-tree. (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #4) Out of curiosity, what do you intend to use this package for? Most/all consumers of gnulib just copy source files they need... packaging it seems odd. Packaging gnulib is against gnulibs working principles. = -1 from me on 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 1022827] Review Request: rubygem-http-cookie - Ruby library to handle HTTP Cookies based on RFC 6265
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022827 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 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 1017994] Review Request: rubygem-climate_control - Modify your ENV easily
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017994 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 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 1015253] Review Request: rubygem-svn2git - A tool for migrating SVN projects to Git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015253 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@redhat.com Assignee|jruzi...@redhat.com |mru...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review+ | --- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Since the first review should be done by a sponsor, I'll do a formal review again, and will mentor and sponsor Flavio. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com 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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Flavio, when increasing the release, please add a changelog entry, everytime! The specs from SRPM and from gist.github,com differ at this point, so this issue is not detected by rpmlint. please nuke the dots between the paragraphs from the description. Everything else looks sane to me. PACKAGE APPROVED. Please fix those minors at import 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 759818] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759818 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nott...@redhat.com, ||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|buffer |Package Review --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Wrong bugzilla Component. Ticket has been visible only for retired package buffer http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/buffer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo - A program which a Linux user can utilize to create a rescue/restore CD/tape
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #60 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Cannot find Bruno Cornec in FAS. Please maintain the FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag properly. Hidden review tickets, wrong ticket status, unclear sponsorship status - that several of the reasons for no progress. 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 187317] Review Request: mindi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #42 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Cannot find Bruno Cornec in FAS. Please maintain the FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag properly. Hidden review tickets, wrong ticket status, unclear sponsorship status - that several of the reasons for no progress. 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 1022396] Review Request: perl-DepGen-Perl-Tests - Tests for RPM dependency generator for Perl packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022396 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-DepGen-Perl-Tests-0.1.1-1.fc18.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DepGen-Perl-Tests-0.1.1-1.fc18.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778 --- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks, I've filed https://github.com/openid/ruby-openid/issues/60 about the license question. I'm also excluding the test directory as you suggest, so we hopefully avoid the issue. * Thu Oct 24 2013 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com - 2.3.0-2 - Updates for review request (RHBZ #1015778) - Update license - Clean up whitespace - Adjust permissions on examples directory - Add link to upstream test suite encoding bug - Move README.md to main package - Exclude INSTALL.md file and test directory Specific changes (in git): http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-ruby-openid.git/commit/?id=75b66ed0e97b2a102899cd15b6bcbebf19cf0922 Spec: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-ruby-openid.spec SRPM: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-2.fc21.src.rpm F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6092974 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: oscap-anaconda-addon - Anaconda addon integrating OpenSCAP to the installation process
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021485 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- Ok, seems good to go, 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 1020014] Review Request: python-pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |pylcdsysinfo - Python |python-pylcdsysinfo - |interface to Coldtears |Python interface to |Electronics LCD Sys Info|Coldtears Electronics LCD |device |Sys Info device -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016677] Review Request: mathjax - JavaScript library to render math in the browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016677 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Can you please comment on this? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets#Fonts Woff fonts are prohibited. The rest looks pretty good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020014] Review Request: python-pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 --- Comment #13 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- Upstream says license is GPLv3 only. Package is now renamed. Spec URL: http://kupo.se/pub/review/python-pylcdsysinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://kupo.se/pub/review/python-pylcdsysinfo-0-0.8.20131014git.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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 --- Comment #11 from Flavio Percoco fperc...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/FlaPer87/7083329/raw/e1985cfc34512b6524527b25200a73cbfd1ffc51/jq.spec SRPM Url: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/pmon1ltklizwodu/jq-1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 --- Comment #12 from Flavio Percoco fperc...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jq Short Description: Lightweight and flexible command-line JSON processor Owners: flaper87 Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020014] Review Request: python-pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 --- Comment #14 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- (In reply to Johan Swensson from comment #12) I will file a bugzilla about it. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022851 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] New: Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Bug ID: 1022908 Summary: Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications 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/jline1/1/jline1.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jline1/1/jline1-1.0-6.fc20.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: JLine is a java library for reading and editing user input in console applications. It features tab-completion, command history, password masking, configurable key-bindings, and pass-through handlers to use to chain to other console applications. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6093056 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sgehw...@redhat.com Blocks||1022897 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022897 [Bug 1022897] jline2 should *no* longer be a compat package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com Blocks|1022897 | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com --- taking the review. For anyone looking at this review: This is a compat package so that we can get rid of jline2 package Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022897 [Bug 1022897] jline2 should *no* longer be a compat package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1022909 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022909 [Bug 1022909] jline should be packaged as jline1 and become a real compat package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908
Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|1022909 |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Few items:
- Maybe we could trim the changelog...it's a new package after all (and
there's one bogus date :-))
- java requires missing (this is an xmvn bug actually: 1022939)
The package is basically good to go, but either wait for XMvn fix for java
requires or add it manually for now
= 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. 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /tmp/1022908-jline1/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Note: compat package name
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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)
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
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1022909 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022909 [Bug 1022909] jline should be packaged as jline1 and become a real compat package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jline1 Short Description: Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications Owners: goldmann Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 --- Comment #13 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jq Short Description: Lightweight and flexible command-line JSON processor Owners: flaper87 Branches: 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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #14 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Spotify is ready to amend their license statement with (private message): Spotify confirms that the personal use restriction does not apply for the open-source downloader. The repackaged Spotify software is for personal use only and in accordance with the Spotify end user agreement. Would this make lpf-spotify legally 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 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1022965 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022965 [Bug 1022965] bookkeeper should depend on jline1 in rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1022969 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022969 [Bug 1022969] groovy should depend on jline1 in rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004231] Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231
Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [@] = Needs to be looked at
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
BUT:
[@] The README mentions that the license is GPLv3, the source code files state
or any later version. Please check that with upstream.
[@] The source code files don't contain Copyright year ..., just mention
the author. Upstream should probably fix this as well.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/lv2 -- other packages
simply depend on the lv2 package.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
-- correct in most places, but I found this in the build log:
[3/3] cxxshlib: build/canvas.cxx.0.o build/sorcer_gui.cxx.0.o -
build/libsorcer_gui.so
17:22:32 runner ['/usr/lib64/ccache/g++', 'canvas.cxx.0.o',
'sorcer_gui.cxx.0.o', '-o',
'/builddir/build/BUILD/lv2-sorcer-0.0.1/gui/build/libsorcer_gui.so',
'-Wl,-Bstatic', '-Wl,-Bdynamic', '-lgtkmm-2.4', '-latkmm-1.6', '-lgtk-x11-2.0',
'-lgdkmm-2.4', '-lgiomm-2.4', '-lpangomm-1.4', '-lglibmm-2.4', '-lcairomm-1.0',
'-lsigc-2.0', '-lgdk-x11-2.0', '-lpangocairo-1.0', '-latk-1.0', '-lcairo',
'-lgdk_pixbuf-2.0', '-lgio-2.0', '-lpangoft2-1.0', '-lpango-1.0',
'-lgobject-2.0', '-lglib-2.0', '-lfontconfig', '-lfreetype', '-Wl,-z,nodelete',
'-shared', '-pthread']
Waf: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/lv2-sorcer-0.0.1/gui/build'
'build' finished successfully (2.591s)
[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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
-- maybe use wave table, synthesizer, dub step, bass lines
-- incoherent-version-in-changelog can be ignored (no need for dist tag
in changelog entry version-release)
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]:
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1022971 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022971 [Bug 1022971] groovy18 should depend on jline1 in rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 --- Comment #13 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Björn besser82 Esser from comment #12) (In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #11) Uhm why? I don't see a guideline prescribing that and so that %_libdir/pkgconfig doesn't go unowned the package has to either own it (only one precedent in F19 according to repoquery) or require pkgconfig which owns it officially (more than 100 devel packages on my machine alone). Explicit Requires: pkgconfig is needed on = el5, only, because on any other dist it will be picked-up correctly by Autorequires. That doesn't seem to be the case, here's the dependencies of the devel subpackage if built without explicitly requiring pkgconfig: nils@gibraltar:~/rpmbuild rpm -qp --requires /home/nils/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libltc-devel-1.1.1-0.1.fc19.x86_64.rpm libltc(x86-64) = 1.1.1-0.1.fc19 libltc.so.11()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 nils@gibraltar:~/rpmbuild I think that what you described only works if the built library requires another in its pkgconfig file (i.e. the Requires line mustn't be empty) -- libltc doesn't need anything else (except libc but that's not pulled in via pkgconfig). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1022978 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022978 [Bug 1022978] plexus-interactivity should depend on jline1 in rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #31 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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rwhoisd-1.5.9.6-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rwhoisd-1.5.9.6-1.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 1017814] Review Request: rwhoisd - ARIN's Referral WHOIS server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017814 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rwhoisd-1.5.9.6-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rwhoisd-1.5.9.6-1.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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 --- 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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 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 1022735] Review Request: truecommons-parent - Renaming from schlichtherle-oss-parent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022735 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 1022735] Review Request: truecommons-parent - Renaming from schlichtherle-oss-parent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022735 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 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 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908 --- Comment #4 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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #15 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- Yes. Lifting FE-Legal. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020435] Review Request: perl-jmx4perl - JSON-HTTP based acess to a remote JMX agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020435 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Updating links, new spotify upstream release: spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-spotify-client/3/lpf-spotify-client.spec srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-spotify-client/3/lpf-spotify-client-0.9.4.183.g644e24e.428-1.fc20.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 881753] Review Request: springframework-batch - Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753 --- Comment #7 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- It seems like people prefer springframework-* naming [1], so let's keep the name as it is. [1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/004967.html Looks like there is some problem with hsqldb and springframework-batch. Probably due to fact that hsqldb1 is a compat package. Could not resolve dependencies for project org.springframework.batch:spring-batch-core:jar:2.1.9.RELEASE: Cannot access central (http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact hsqldb:hsqldb:jar:SYSTEM has not been downloaded from it before. However, instead of fixing this problem I would recommend updating this package to version 2.2.2 which depends on hsqldb 2.x. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||negativ...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|negativ...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-10-24 08:55:28 --- Comment #15 from Flavio Percoco fperc...@redhat.com --- Packages for f19, f20 and el6 were built successfully. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020435] Review Request: perl-jmx4perl - JSON-HTTP based acess to a remote JMX agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020435 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- URL is usable. Ok. Source0 is valid. Ok. Source tar ball is original (SHA-256: efbc2dce1fffbf651d098500aedf53065cdb3cc308784f94135f77d93e24). Ok. Summary is Ok. Description verified from README. Ok. inc/* files are perl-licensed but they don't go into binary package. Their license is not significant for License tag. License verified from LICENSE, REAMDE, lib/JMX/Jmx4Perl/Manual.pod. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. FIX: The dependency filtering macros used are obsolete. Use __requires_exclude instead https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering. Bundled Module::Build has been removed. Ok. TODO: Do not package META.json. It does not bring any additional documentation. FIX: Build-require `perl(constant)' (lib/JMX/Jmx4Perl/Request.pm:141). FIX: Build-require `perl(HTTP::Request)' (lib/JMX/Jmx4Perl/Agent.pm:6). FIX: Build-require `perl(Nagios::Plugin::Functions)' (lib/JMX/Jmx4Perl/Nagios/CheckJmx4Perl.pm:11). TODO: Build-require `perl(overload)' (lib/JMX/Jmx4Perl/Alias/Object.pm:46). FIX: Build-require `perl(URI::Escape)' (lib/JMX/Jmx4Perl/Agent.pm:5). TODO: Build-require `perl(FindBin)' (t/10_handler.t:5). TODO: Build-require `perl(lib)' (t/10_handler.t:6). FIX: The Build.PL is interactive. Redirect /dev/null to stdin. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-jmx4perl.spec ../SRPMS/perl-jmx4perl-1.07-4.fc21.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-jmx4perl-1.07-4.fc21.noarch.rpm perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/jetty.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/common.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/memory.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/glassfish.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/metrics.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/threads.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/jboss.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/tomcat.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/jmx4perl/weblogic.cfg perl-jmx4perl.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-jmx4perl/LICENSE 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. FIX: Mark those configuration files with %config(noreplace) macro in the %files section https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files. File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-jmx4perl-1.07-4.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort -i | uniq -c 1 gnupg2 1 perl(Archive::Zip) 1 perl(base) 2 perl(Carp) 1 perl(Config::General) 1 perl(Config::General) = 2.34 1 perl(constant) 1 perl(Crypt::Blowfish_PP) 1 perl(Cwd) 2 perl(Data::Dumper) 2 perl(Digest::MD5) 2 perl(Digest::SHA1) 1 perl(Exporter) 1 perl(File::SearchPath) 1 perl(File::Spec) 1 perl(File::Temp) 1 perl(FindBin) 1 perl(Getopt::Long) 1 perl(HTTP::Request) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::ArtifactHandler) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::DownloadAgent) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::Logger) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::Meta) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::Verifier) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::Verifier::ChecksumVerifier) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::Verifier::PGPKey) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::Jolokia::WebXmlHandler) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Agent::UserAgent) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Alias) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Alias::Object) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Config) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::J4psh) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::J4psh::Command) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::J4psh::CommandHandler) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::J4psh::CompletionHandler) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::J4psh::ServerHandler) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::J4psh::Shell) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Nagios::CactiJmx4Perl) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Nagios::CheckJmx4Perl) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Nagios::SingleCheck) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Product::BaseHandler) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Request) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Response) 1 perl(JMX::Jmx4Perl::Util) 1 perl(JSON) 1 perl(JSON) = 2.12 1 perl(lib) 2 perl(LWP::UserAgent) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1) 2 perl(Module::Find) 1 perl(Nagios::Plugin) 1 perl(Nagios::Plugin) = 0.27 1 perl(Nagios::Plugin::Functions) 1 perl(Pod::Usage) 1 perl(POSIX) 2 perl(Scalar::Util) 1 perl(strict) 2 perl(Sys::SigAction) 1 perl(TAP::Harness) 1 perl(Term::ANSIColor) 2 perl(Term::Clui) 1 perl(Term::ProgressBar) 2 perl(Term::ShellUI)
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- blosc-1.2.3-9.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/blosc-1.2.3-9.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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- blosc-1.2.3-9.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/blosc-1.2.3-9.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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #17 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/lpf/packages/spotify-client/state
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/lpf, /var/lib/lpf/packages,
/var/lib/lpf, /usr/share/lpf/packages
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /var/lib/lpf,
/var/lib/lpf/packages, /usr/share/lpf, /usr/share/lpf/packages
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: 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.
[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 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]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: 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.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define target_pkg %(t=%{name};
echo ${t#lpf-})
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]:
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #18 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
Issues:
[!]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
The license is MIT, but there's no license file installed. Please provide one
in %doc.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
On line 33, please use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share.
On line 47 and 48 please use %{_sharedstatedir} instead of /var/lib.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX is a working URL.
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: 0 or more than one spec file in srpm(!)
See: (this test has no URL)
There is no documentation nor procedure on how to regenerate the source
tarball.
Please provide an external script in the source (like Mesa) or provide comments
in the SPEC file. Also the versioning needs documenting, where does
0.9.4.183.g644e24e.428 come from? I assume it's a snapshot, so if you paste
commands to regenerate the tarball that would be ok.
I assume you can move the URL to Source0, etc.
Group: Development/Tools
Please remove the Group tag, is needed only on EPEL 5.
%description
Please make the first description line a bit longer so that it goes nearer to
the 80 columns limit.
Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/lpf/packages/spotify-client/state
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
You can remove line 48; line 47 already includes everything beneath the
directory listed. To make it list only one directory (so you can keep line 48)
please use the %dir macro which only adds the directory and not the contents.
Rpmlint issues:
lpf-spotify-client.noarch: W: invalid-url
URL: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/spotify/0.9.0/lpf-spotify-client.spec
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
Please fix, see above comment for source. All the other warnings do not apply
here so packages are 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 1023051] New: Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applciations 1.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051 Bug ID: 1023051 Summary: Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applciations 1.0 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-batch-1.0-api/1/jboss-batch-1.0-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-batch-1.0-api/1/jboss-batch-1.0-api-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: JSR 352: Batch Applications for the Java Platform API classes Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6094601 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applciations 1.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051 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 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applciations 1.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@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 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7) (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) It is nice to be able to use it without bundling in the sources: No. This is not the way gnulib is supposed to be used. gnulib files are supposed to be updated from git and the results to be bundled inside of a source-tree. This is one of the approaches. Another one is to update those sources regularly during development(gnulib-tool --update), and only release releases with a specific snapshot. But even assuming that gnulib files are copied and kept in tree, as you say, there's a question how to best do that. During normal development of C code, if I'm about to gnulib-ify my project, it is much more continent to say 'yum install gnulib gnulib-tool --import', than to say 'cd /var/tmp/ git clone some-address-I'll-have-to-look-up make -C gnulib cd - $OLDPWD/gnulib/gnulib-tool --import'. For the developer, keeping gnulib git tree updated is an additional chore, which is nicely solved by updating the gnulib snapshot through yum. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-primes Short Description: Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers Owners: s4504kr Branches: F-20, F-19 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #18)
Issues:
[cut]
The license is MIT, but there's no license file installed. Please provide
one in %doc.
Done.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
On line 33, please use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share.
On line 47 and 48 please use %{_sharedstatedir} instead of /var/lib.
I'd prefer not to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#macros
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX is a working URL.
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: 0 or more than one spec file in srpm(!)
See: (this test has no URL)
There is no documentation nor procedure on how to regenerate the source
tarball.
I guess this is about spotify-client.spec? If so, there is no need for this
since the Source: url is OK:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
Please provide an external script in the source (like Mesa) or provide
comments in the SPEC file. Also the versioning needs documenting, where does
0.9.4.183.g644e24e.428 come from? I assume it's a snapshot, so if you paste
commands to regenerate the tarball that would be ok.
The version field is the upstream spotify version, I don't really see what kind
of comment that would be? Added the fact that this is indeed upstream version.
[cut]
Group: Development/Tools
Isn't Group: tag allowed?:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
%description
Please make the first description line a bit longer so that it goes nearer
to the 80 columns limit.
Done.
Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice:
/var/lib/lpf/packages/spotify-client/state
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
You can remove line 48; line 47 already includes everything beneath the
directory listed. To make it list only one directory (so you can keep line
48) please use the %dir macro which only adds the directory and not the
contents.
Yes, but I need to set the permissions correct. If I remove that line I need to
add a %defattr(664)+ %attr(644) to all files. Certainly possible, but better?
scratches my head
BTW, on f20 rpmlint crashes on this ;)
Rpmlint issues:
lpf-spotify-client.noarch: W: invalid-url
URL: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/spotify/0.9.0/lpf-spotify-client.spec
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
Please fix, see above comment for source. All the other warnings do not
apply here so packages are ok.
Fixed for now, need to create a better upstream on github before importing,
though.
In future, it would be good you mentioned which spec you are referring to.. New
problem ,for sure.
Updated in-place, same links, changelog updated.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- What about the summary solution? Ian, please don't think that we are waiting futile change, changing to a clearer summary will help a lot for other users. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016677] Review Request: mathjax - JavaScript library to render math in the browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016677 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Brendan Jones from comment #5) Can you please comment on this? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets#Fonts Woff fonts are prohibited. I missed this part of the guidelines. It's unfortunate that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy don't say that, and also doesn't refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets in any way. Will fix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #15 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 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401 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 1008476] Review Request: perl-Date-HolidayParser - Parser for .holiday-files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008476 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #2) dayplanner has been in Fedora for 5+ years, so a missing dependency is doubtful. It may be necessary for an upgrade, but the same situation is very common for other packages as well. Please don't usurp the severity, otherwise the whole review queue will quickly turn red. Thanks. But I think we need it urgently as dayplanner from 0.11 really requires 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 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applciations 1.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051
Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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.
[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
= 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jboss-
batch-1.0-api-javadoc
This is false positive.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #20 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #19)
On line 33, please use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share.
On line 47 and 48 please use %{_sharedstatedir} instead of /var/lib.
I'd prefer not to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#macros
Ok, no problem.
Group: Development/Tools
Isn't Group: tag allowed?:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
Ok, as you prefer. Are you planning to build this also in EPEL?
Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice:
/var/lib/lpf/packages/spotify-client/state
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
You can remove line 48; line 47 already includes everything beneath the
directory listed. To make it list only one directory (so you can keep line
48) please use the %dir macro which only adds the directory and not the
contents.
Yes, but I need to set the permissions correct. If I remove that line I need
to add a %defattr(664)+ %attr(644) to all files. Certainly possible, but
better? scratches my head
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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #34 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Added to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring#B. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #21 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- The version field is the upstream spotify version, I don't really see what kind of comment that would be? Added the fact that this is indeed upstream version. Ok after the comment you've added. I'm not following you on these comments, can you explain a bit more? [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX is a working URL. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: 0 or more than one spec file in srpm(!) See: (this test has no URL) There is no documentation nor procedure on how to regenerate the source tarball. I guess this is about spotify-client.spec? If so, there is no need for this since the Source: url is OK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github I haven't look at the spec file inside the package, I'm referring to the contents of the package, in particular: Source0:spotify-client.spec Source1:eula.txt Where do they come from? Handwritten? Taken from a website? Usually Source files have a URL for downloading or comments in the SPEC file or instructions on how to generate them (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL). In future, it would be good you mentioned which spec you are referring to.. New problem ,for sure. I haven't looked at the bundled spec file; but I assume the review is only for the package that is actually built and assembled in the Fedora infrastructure. Should I also look at the lpf spec file (Source0)? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 881753] Review Request: springframework-batch - Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- in my system (f19) is not available hsqldb 2.x, and i not sure if with the changes that you ask of me, there are no problems of compatibility. for now leave hsqldb 1.x Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-batch.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-batch-2.1.9-1.fc19.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6094671 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #14 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Unexpected. Which version of package rpm-build is that with? The file /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh hasn't changed between F19 and F20, and: $ rpm -qpR libltc-devel-1.1.1-0.1.fc20.x86_64.rpm|grep pkg /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconfig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022407] Review Request: yumdaemon - DBus API for yum
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- Everything looks good now. 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 1003057] Review Request: irstlm - Statistical language model tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003057 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- No worries. Thanks for the review, Tim! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: irstlm Short Description: Statistical language model tool Owners: jjames 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 1003057] Review Request: irstlm - Statistical language model tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003057 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Jan Lieskovsky jlies...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: scap-security-guide New Branches: el6 Owners: jlieskov InitialCC: pvrabec swells [The Fedora SCAP content has been already packaged for Fedora 18, Fedora 19, and upcoming Fedora 20. We need yet to package SCAP content for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/scap-security-guide.git/tree/RHEL6 for EPEL6 repository yet. The package name will be the same, just the *.spec file's changelog entries and content would (slightly) differ. Thank you, Jan.] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1003057] Review Request: irstlm - Statistical language model tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003057 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 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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 --- Comment #22 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #21) I guess this is about spotify-client.spec? If so, there is no need for this since the Source: url is OK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github I haven't look at the spec file inside the package, I'm referring to the contents of the package, in particular: Source0:spotify-client.spec Source1:eula.txt Where do they come from? Handwritten? Taken from a website? Usually Source files have a URL for downloading or comments in the SPEC file or instructions on how to generate them (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL). OK, see your point and yes, this is the very thing here. Normally, you don't ask for the upstream for the spec, it just exists somehow. However, in this case we cant allow spotify-client to go into fedora, so I sort of wrap it into lpf-spotify-client. And spotify-client.spec becomes Source0:. From my perspective, this is just how it is, but it's not obvious. I suggest that we see this package as the spotify-client package with a lpf wrapper. From this perspective spotify-client.spec just exists. There is no other upstream for this spec, for sure. Given this, I'll gladly accept any proposal for a comment to Source0. I just can't come up with something sensible to write. The eula needs a comment, for sure. Added. Long links is a pain. Same links, changelog updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #14 from Erik Johnson e...@saltstack.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #13) (snip) So, one problem: bundled code. There are three things: 1. ext/console.py → this is some interface code, taken from SO, which is part of Python3.3 upstream, but not of Python2.7. 2. ext/os_data.py → basically configuration 3. ext/HTMLTestRunner.py from http://tungwaiyip.info/software/HTMLTestRunner.html 1. and 2. are OK → small snippets of code that are not standalone products. 3. can and should be packaged separately. So, this should be placed into a separate package in the spec? If so, is it OK to install it into the same directories as salt-testing, or should it be installed in its own specific 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 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Left swells of InitialCC, not in FAS, can be added 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 1017401] Review Request: ghc-primes - Efficient purely functional generation of prime numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017401 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-10-24 11:26:28 --- Comment #16 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de --- Built and pushed for Rawhide, F-20 and F-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 1022644] Review Request: php-gliph - A graph library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022644 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- I plan to review this small one before another hude one ;) Please add a link to https://github.com/sdboyer/gliph/issues/1 Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT. So this will be a blocker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022644] Review Request: php-gliph - A graph library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022644 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Created attachment 815836 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=815836action=edit phpci.log phpcompatinfo version 2.24.0. -- 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 1022644] Review Request: php-gliph - A graph library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022644 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Created attachment 815838 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=815838action=edit review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1022644 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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 1022644] Review Request: php-gliph - A graph library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022644 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. php-common = php(language) [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT. = have to wait for upstream to add this file https://github.com/sdboyer/gliph/issues/1 = So this will be a blocker. As LICENSE is now part of upstream repo, you can add it Source1: https://raw.github.com/sdboyer/gliph/php53/LICENSE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022644] Review Request: php-gliph - A graph library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022644
--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
Small notice, I don't think it make sense to have a %{github_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 908116] Review Request: openshift-origin-console - The OpenShift Management Console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908116 --- Comment #13 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-console.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-console-1.10.2.2-3.fc20.src.rpm - Added tests and test requirements, but don't enforce yet because all the requirements aren't in Fedora. - Patched Gemfile to work with Fedora's newer gem versions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #15 from Erik Johnson e...@saltstack.com --- Also, this file appears to have been modified from the original version 0.8.2 from the source website. Here's a diff. http://pastebin.com/igfV0RBf So would the solution perhaps be to add note to the changelog within HTMLTestRunner.py, indicating what changes have been made? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022407] Review Request: yumdaemon - DBus API for yum
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: yumdaemon Short Description: DBus API for yum Owners: timlau 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 1018393] Review Request: lv2-artyfx-plugins - a collection of LV2 audio plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018393 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- 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 1003057] Review Request: irstlm - Statistical language model tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003057 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- irstlm-5.80.03-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/irstlm-5.80.03-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1003057] Review Request: irstlm - Statistical language model tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003057 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
