[Bug 1015701] Review Request: amiri-fonts - Arabic font form amirifont.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015701 --- Comment #17 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Mosaab, Do some full reviews of new packages not just one or two comments. I will be happy to sponsor then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015701] Review Request: amiri-fonts - Arabic font form amirifont.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015701 --- Comment #18 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Ok I'll search. These was latest 3 new review bugs !! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony2 - PHP full-stack web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alexisis-pristontale@hotmai ||l.com --- Comment #3 from Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com --- On the test section, you must add this peace of code into new source. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony2 - PHP full-stack web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 Remi Collet rcol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rcol...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet rcol...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Lameire Alexis from comment #3) On the test section, you must add this peace of code into new source. ? Yes, the failing PHPUnit tests are normal unfortunately. They fail even when I manually run the tests on all of my test machines. I added || : Temporarily ignore failed tests in the %check section so the failing PHPUnit tests do not cause the building of the RPMs to fail though. I a bit uncomfortable with completely skipping the test result. In previous multi-spec solution, the test of most of the component were ok. Only a few were ignored. Skipping the test global result will not allow us to detect regression. I should be possible to disable only the failed test ? (during investigation with upstream on those failure) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976793] Review Request: libLunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I'm still confused with pkgconfig explicit requires now. And can you update this package to 1.6.0 version? Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970956] Review Request: libclens - A convenience library to aid in porting code from OpenBSD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970956 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Hi all, before update this review, I want to know which name is better? clens(tarball name) or libclens(more like a library)? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony2 - PHP full-stack web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- @shawn: some interesting information in https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/.travis.yml Perhaps a workaround (temp. excluding src/Symfony/Bundle) is for dir in src/Symfony/Component/* src/Symfony/Bridge/* do echo -e \n- $dir \n phpunit -d include_path=./src:.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear \ -d date.timezone=UTC --exclude-group tty,benchmark $dir done From https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/composer.json Perhaps some dependencies (requires-dev) are missing, which are needed for the some tests.. The Fatal error: Class 'Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\FrameworkBundle' not found ... could probably be explained... but don't see trivial explanation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #7 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- For -2 * Obsoletes - What I said before is meant that Obsoletes lines must be changed to Obsoletes: ruby-openid = 2.1.7-11, for example (i.e. not = but =) * License tag - Ah, the license tag for the main package should be Ruby and ASL 2.0 and MIT (as lib/hmac/hmac.rb, lib/openid/yadis/htmltokenizer.rb are under Ruby). Please update the license tag again, sorry. * Permission - It seems that some files in -doc subpackage have executable permission: /usr/share/gems/gems/ruby-openid-2.3.0/examples/rails_openid/script/rails /usr/share/gems/gems/ruby-openid-2.3.0/examples/discover /usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-openid-2.3.0/rdoc/images/add.png /usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-openid-2.3.0/rdoc/images/arrow_up.png /usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-openid-2.3.0/rdoc/images/delete.png /usr/share/gems/doc/ruby-openid-2.3.0/rdoc/images/tag_blue.png At least it seems wrong that png files have executable permission. * Note that the executable permission on /examples/rails_openid/script/rails, /examples/discover adds the dependency /usr/bin/env to -doc subpackage. You may also want to suppress this dependency (by also removing executable permission on these files, or to add filtering macro again (which is contrary to what I said before, however for this case it seems okay) ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023356] Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023356 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6097718 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023356] New: Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023356 Bug ID: 1023356 Summary: Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-stm.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-stm-2.4.2-25.fc19.src.rpm Description: A modular composable concurrency abstraction. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023356] Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023356 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||ghc-stm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023356] Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023356 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Whiteboard||Ready --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This is another Haskell Platform unsubpackage review. Previous review was bug 557390. stm has over 240 reverse dependencies in Hackage: http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/stm I would like to get this ready for moving rawhide to ghc-7.8. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023356] Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023356 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applications 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) | Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch |jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch |Applciations 1.0 API|Applications 1.0 API Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-batch-1.0-api Short Description: Batch Applications 1.0 API Owners: goldmann Branches: f20 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021244] Review Request: aspell-la - Latin dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021244 Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aspell-la Short Description: Latin dictionaries for Aspell Owners: opuk Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- It's ok, now it's clear. I think that if you add something along the line of: # There is no source, only the spec file which allows building the # non-redistributable package. or anything like that, it would be ok. Thanks for the 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 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||jline1-1.0-6 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-25 05:48:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #17 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
I cannot reproduce it with F19 either.
Package rpm-build requires package pkgconfig, so /usr/bin/pkg-config is
available always. Only if I break the dependency and erase pkgconfig, that
disables the detection here. Package redhat-rpm-config is not needed.
In strace rpmbuild --rebuild libltc-1.1.1-0.1.fc19.src.rpm | grep pkg output,
one can see what files are accessed for the pkgconfig deps detection. It starts
with evaluating this file:
$ cat /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/pkgconfig.attr
%__pkgconfig_provides%{_rpmconfigdir}/pkgconfigdeps.sh --provides
%__pkgconfig_requires%{_rpmconfigdir}/pkgconfigdeps.sh --requires
%__pkgconfig_path
^((%{_libdir}|%{_datadir})/pkgconfig/.*\.pc|%{_bindir}/pkg-config)$
If extracting the built ltc.pc file to current dir, one can test manually, too:
$ echo ltc.pc | /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh -R
/usr/bin/pkg-config
$ echo ltc.pc | /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh -P
pkgconfig(ltc) = 1.1.1
Find out what happens on your machine(s).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 #24 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. Will fix the source comment and add a README - how to actually use this is not really obvious :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lpf-spotify-client Short Description: Spotify music player native client package bootstrap Owners: leamas 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 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kcham...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 --- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lpf Short Description: Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms Owners: leamas 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 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023356] Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023356
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[x] Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: ghc-stm-devel. Does not provide -static: ghc-
stm-devel.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
-- No, we should see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell#Shared_and_static_library_linking
Ignored. ;)
[x] Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ghc-stm
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
-- Ignored. ;)
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/rpmaker/Desktop/ghc-stm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 430080 bytes in 42 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 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
[Bug 1020839] Review Request: fedora-gooey-karma - GUI tool for adding karma to Bodhi system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020839 --- Comment #14 from Branislav Blaškovič bblas...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 816073 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=816073action=edit Icon mockup fedora-gooey-karma has icon! I've asked Máirín Duffy for them and she did it. I am very thankfull! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- I'm OK with the patches, I understand the need to include them after testing your package. It's better having a way to distinguish folders from files in Nautilus, when both have thumbnails. I won't post once again a complete review for this update, since its results are the same than in #2. As a result, this package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022255] Review Request: libltc - Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255 --- Comment #18 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Just for reference (and instead of submitting a koji scratch-build), here's a package for F19 with a .pc file that contains no Requires line but results in proper automatic Provides/Requires: xorg-x11-font-utils-1:7.5-17.fc19.x86_64.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=4128869 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks. The package is in its infancy so just rawhide for now. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-directory-thumbnailer Short Description: Thumbnailer for directories based on some heuristics Owners: yaneti Branches: 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 1023210] Review Request: python-irawadi-user - Python Library for manage system user in Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210 Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283 --- Comment #18 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- I don't build this package just for it, I need this package to build : https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools Sorts Mill uses gnulib-tool at building time. Sorts Mill necessary to build Amiri Fonts : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015701 Also I don't want to show Fedora poor of any tool may we use or need some day. - So I hope to accept this Gnulib Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] New: Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 Bug ID: 1023429 Summary: Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation 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/jberet/1/jberet.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jberet/1/jberet-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha4.fc20.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: JSR 352: Batch Applications for the Java Platform implementation classes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 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 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applications 1.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1023429 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 [Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 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 973069] Review Request:lpf-spotify-client - build and install spotify-client rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069 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 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1023051 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051 [Bug 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applications 1.0 API -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #26 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 1022584] Review Request: qpid-qmf - The QPID Management Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022584 --- Comment #3 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) What Fedora and EPEL versions are being targetted? No EPEL, but for Fedora I'm going to target 21+ for the changes to both qpid-qmf and the existing qpid-cpp. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 --- Comment #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 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 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 1021164] Review Request: general-purpose-preprocessor - Customizable language-agnostic preprocessor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021164 --- 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 1021244] Review Request: aspell-la - Latin dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021244 --- Comment #3 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 1021164] Review Request: general-purpose-preprocessor - Customizable language-agnostic preprocessor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021164 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 1021244] Review Request: aspell-la - Latin dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021244 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 1022690] Review Request: gela-asis - Platform/compiler independent implementation of AdaSemantic Interface specification.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022690 Siddharth Sharma siddharth@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||siddharth@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|siddharth@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 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applications 1.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051 --- Comment #3 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 1023051] Review Request: jboss-batch-1.0-api - Batch Applications 1.0 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023051 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 1023210] Review Request: python-irawadi-user - Python Library for manage system user in Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- WARNING: villaldamine is not a valid FAS account. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023210] Review Request: python-irawadi-user - Python Library for manage system user in Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021199] Review Request: aspell-fi - Finnish dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021199 Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aspell-fi Short Description: Finnish dictionaries for Aspell Owners: opuk Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pylcdsysinfo Short Description: Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device Owners: opuk Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023210] Review Request: python-irawadi-user - Python Library for manage system user in Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210 --- Comment #19 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-irawadi-user Short Description: Python Library for manage system user in Linux Owners: villadalmine yograterol Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023210] Review Request: python-irawadi-user - Python Library for manage system user in Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210 Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020014] Review Request: python-pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 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 1020014] Review Request: python-pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014 --- Comment #17 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 1021199] Review Request: aspell-fi - Finnish dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021199 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 1023210] Review Request: python-irawadi-user - Python Library for manage system user in Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210 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 1021199] Review Request: aspell-fi - Finnish dictionaries for Aspell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021199 --- 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 1023210] Review Request: python-irawadi-user - Python Library for manage system user in Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210 --- Comment #20 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 1013485] Re-Review Request: mod_scgi - Apache2 module for the SCGI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013485
--- Comment #10 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com ---
I've taken a closer look at the latest submission, and I've found the following
issues:
Requires
mod_scgi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(mod_scgi)
httpd-mmn
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-scgi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
python(abi)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
As you can see, autoreq didn't pick python-scgi for the mod_scgi package, so we
need to add one. The httpd-mmn version you're enforcing is missing, I get this
in the build log:
cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory
Other packages use an _httpd_mmn macro [1] but not all of them actually use it
in the Requires tag. This may be a packaging mistake, but I haven't seen
guidelines for httpd modules.
Another issue:
sed -i 1d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitearch}/scgi/*
Is it necessary to remove the shebangs ? If the scripts can both be used as
modules and standalone scripts, it's probably best not to remove them.
Everything else looks fine to me.
Best Regards,
Dridi
[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mod_auth_cas.git/tree/mod_auth_cas.spec
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mod_auth_kerb.git/tree/mod_auth_kerb.spec
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mod_auth_openid.git/tree/mod_auth_openid.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6098482 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022584] Review Request: qpid-qmf - The QPID Management Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022584 --- Comment #4 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) 0. Not critizing, just trying to understand. Why are those packages split out from qpid-cpp? The QMF code is pretty much obsolete at this point, but there are still packages that depend on it. The current code is fairly stable, but will soon be moving to its own upstream source release that's independent of the Qpid code releases. So, rather than rebuilding the QMF packages each time Qpid releases, even though QMF hasn't changed at all, we'd like to make the QMF packages totally independent of the Qpid packages. 1. Those %globals at the top are probably not required, unless you're targetting EPEL5. Good point. Removed. 2. python-devel requires python, so BR:python is not necessary. Removed that, and also ruby. 3. %defattr is not needed. Removed. 4. %clean section is not necessary, likewise empty %check. Removed. 5. Can you restructure the spec file to have normal structure: %package, %description, %prep, %build, %install, %post, %files... Well, the way it is now the sections for each subpackage are grouped together, making it easier to read all parts of each subpackage on a single screen. I'd rather keep it that way. 6. Can you extend the %description a bit? management — for what?, etc. Done. I pulled the description from our project website. 7. Change BR: phyton-devel to python2-devel Done 8. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/qpid-qmf-0.24 Fixed. 9. Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/qmf(qpid-cpp- client-devel), /usr/include/qmf/engine(qpid-cpp-client-devel) Since there's a dependency on those packages anyway, maybe there's no need to own those directories. When this package gets through review, those ownerships in qpid-cpp will go away: qpid-cpp-client-devel currently owns the qmf include direct, but that's being removed in an update, same with the qmf/engine directory. 10. Dist tag is missing. qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libqmfengine.so qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libqmfconsole.so qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libqmf2.so qpid-qmf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libqmf.so Fixed. 11. qpid-qmf-devel requires pkgconfig. I think this can be filtered out: %global __requires_exclude pkg-config Done. 12. Docs ended up in a versioned directory: /usr/share/doc/qpid-qmf-0.24/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/qpid-qmf-0.24/NOTICE Hrm, the global macro should only define a versioned directory if there wasn't already an existing version. Anyway, since I'm targeting releases where the macro is predefined, I've removed the global and the qpid-qmf package owns the directory. Update SPEC: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-qmf.spec Update SRPM: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-qmf-0.24-11.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6098174 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013485] Re-Review Request: mod_scgi - Apache2 module for the SCGI protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013485
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #11 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
About httpd-mmn, correct solution is
%{!?_httpd_mmn: %{expand: %%global _httpd_mmn %%(cat %{_includedir}/httpd/.mmn
2/dev/null || echo missing-httpd-devel)}}
(notice, the previous can probably be omitted, as always provided by recent
httpd-develà
Requires: httpd-mmn = %{_httpd_mmn}
@dridi, you're right, this is missing in mod_auth_cas (probably worth a bug
report)
About scgi.conf, with apache 2.4 this files have to be splited
- /etc/httpd/conf.modules.d/10-scgi.conf = only the loadmodule
- /etc/httpd/conf.d/scgi.conf
(and please remove comment about a2enmod command which is debian specific)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] New: Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 Bug ID: 1023474 Summary: Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pjo...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/efivar/efivar.spec SRPM URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/efivar/efivar-0.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: efivar provides a simple command line interface to the UEFI variable facility, and a corresponding library. Fedora Account System Username: pjones -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com --- Missing BuildRequires: git Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mem0T9 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf efivar-0.7 + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/0.7.tar.gz + /usr/bin/tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd efivar-0.7 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + git init /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mem0T9: line 39: git: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mem0T9 (%prep) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mem0T9 (%prep) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019772] Review Request: gnome-directory-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019772 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-10-25 10:00:57 --- Comment #8 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Imported and built -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- please, install jberet-distribution/src/main/resources/LICENSE.txt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #18) I don't build this package just for it, I need this package to build : https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools Sorts Mill uses gnulib-tool at building time. Upstream design flaw ;) You probabably can work around this it by adding the missing files offline and to apply the generated files as a patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474
--- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
%doc COPYING
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL, Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/ajax/efivar/efivar-0.7-1.fc20.src/efivar/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in efivar-libs
, efivar-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 --- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jberet/2/jberet.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jberet/2/jberet-1.0.0-0.2.Alpha4.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6098663 Changelog: - Added license file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 --- Comment #3 from Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com --- Okay, I've fixed those things. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com --- Well your spec file still doesn't say BuildRequires: git, but you'll need to fix that quite soon anyway. r+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- thanks! build fails on my system: [INFO] --- maven-surefire-plugin:2.16:test (default-test) @ jberet-se --- [INFO] Surefire report directory: /builddir/build/BUILD/jsr352-1.0.0.Alpha4/jberet-se/target/surefire-reports --- T E S T S --- Running org.jberet.se.test.MainTest [main] INFO org.jboss.weld.Version - WELD-000900 2.0.3 (Final) [main] INFO org.jboss.weld.Bootstrap - WELD-000101 Transactional services not available. Injection of @Inject UserTransaction not available. Transactional observers will be invoked synchronously. Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.055 sec FAILURE! - in org.jberet.se.test.MainTest testMain(org.jberet.se.test.MainTest) Time elapsed: 1.002 sec ERROR! java.util.ServiceConfigurationError: javax.batch.operations.JobOperator: Provider org.jberet.operations.JobOperatorImpl could not be instantiated: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.jboss.weld.bootstrap.api.Singleton.set(Ljava/lang/Object;)V at org.jboss.weld.Container.initialize(Container.java:69) at org.jboss.weld.bootstrap.WeldBootstrap.startContainer(WeldBootstrap.java:360) at org.jboss.weld.bootstrap.api.helpers.ForwardingBootstrap.startContainer(ForwardingBootstrap.java:40) at org.jboss.weld.environment.se.Weld.initialize(Weld.java:139) at org.jberet.se.SEArtifactFactory.init(SEArtifactFactory.java:31) at org.jberet.se.BatchSEEnvironment.getArtifactFactory(BatchSEEnvironment.java:64) at org.jberet.operations.JobOperatorImpl.init(JobOperatorImpl.java:67) at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:526) at java.lang.Class.newInstance(Class.java:374) at java.util.ServiceLoader$LazyIterator.next(ServiceLoader.java:373) at java.util.ServiceLoader$1.next(ServiceLoader.java:445) at javax.batch.runtime.BatchRuntime.getJobOperator(BatchRuntime.java:57) at org.jberet.se.Main.main(Main.java:36) at org.jberet.se.test.MainTest.testMain(MainTest.java:29) Results : Tests in error: MainTest.testMain:29 ? ServiceConfiguration javax.batch.operations.JobOperator... Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0 [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] Skipping jberet-parent [INFO] This project has been banned from the build due to previous failures. [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] Reactor Summary: [INFO] [INFO] jberet-parent . SUCCESS [1.663s] [INFO] jberet-core ... SUCCESS [7.577s] [INFO] jberet-se . FAILURE [2.401s] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- ah ok use latest wel-core release ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 --- Comment #5 from Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com --- Sorry, didn't scp the new .spec . Done now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 --- Comment #6 from Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: efivar Short Description: efivar provides a utility and library to manipulate efi variables Owners: pjones Branches: f20 f21 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 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). f21 not yet branched, devel is automatic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 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 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony2 - PHP full-stack web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 --- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #5) One of the biggest issues with the RPM build for the tests is that we are not using the Composer-generated autoload files which add more than just include path class loading. Would you rather: 1) Continue to figure out our own solution without using Composer-generated autoload files 2) Generate the Composer autoload files and include them in the pkg (since we do not have a Fedora Composer pkg) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(mimi...@redhat.co
||m)
--- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Reviewer's Note: the %{version} macros being used here are evaluating to the
subpackage version and not the SRPM version. You need to be more explicit and
create an %{openlmi_script_version} macro.
- Source location does not match github guidelines
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
- BuildRequires and Requires must include 'openlmi-tools = 0.8'
= 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:
BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 19 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /dev/shm/review/openlmi-
scripts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/openlmi, /usr/share/doc/openlmi-scripts
Reviewer's note: not the fault of this package
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/openlmi-scripts,
/etc/openlmi
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 11 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Reviewer's note: See issues above
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[Bug 1013037] Review Request: otf2 - Open Trace Format 2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks for the review Jerry. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: otf2 Short Description: Open Trace Format 2 library Owners: orion Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807 --- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Any progress ? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- According to the bugzilla time stamps: Submission: 2013-10-25 09:47:19 EDT Git done: 2013-10-25 10:48:51 EDT = 61 minutes from submission to git done Mails delivered at my place Submission Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:27:01 Git done: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:49:07 = 22 minutes from submission to review. Sorry, folks but ... this is Redhat Review Ping Pong. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@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 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony2 - PHP full-stack web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks for pointing the exact problem: this is not designed to be packaged. Sorry, but you know my feeling about composer (bull-shit-to-create-broken-system), so I will try to not be too rude in my answer ;) Most components are distributed via a pear channel, to be installed system-wide, and be used by other app. And it works, p.e: PHPUnit uses various Symfony2 component (and I haven't try yet how PHPUnit will react with symfony2 from outside pear channel, thus, with lot of pear broken dep). For other things, (probably those which are not available in pear channel), this seems to means they are not designed for such usage (and honestly, afaik, upstream really don't care). So if we are unable to provide a simple autoload mechanism for them, (and so, to run test unit), this mean that nobody will be able to use them, and so, that packaging have absolutely no sense. If we package a framework, this is to be able to use it from a packaged web application (other people will very probably not even try to use it). Ex : ZF2 is used by GLPI, and all works as expected, without any hack. So for your proposal (2) sorry again, but I can't even imagine how this can be usable. composer install will pull all the needed dependencies, and install them in vendor, exactly what we don't want (bundled-lib-factory) and what will happen is someone run composer install in this dir ? So, yes (1) still for me the only way to go. Please prove me that packaging this way (single spec vs per pear component spec) is really possible and have some sense. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995933] Re-Review Request: mlmmj - A simple and slim mailing list manager inspired by ezmlm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995933 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dpie...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dpie...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013037] Review Request: otf2 - Open Trace Format 2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037 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 1013037] Review Request: otf2 - Open Trace Format 2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
NOTE: manual review
cause: missing weld-core-2.1.0-0.1.CR1
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
IGNORE
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/gil/1023429-jberet/srpm/review-
jberet/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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
[Bug 995933] Re-Review Request: mlmmj - A simple and slim mailing list manager inspired by ezmlm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995933 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@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 995933] Re-Review Request: mlmmj - A simple and slim mailing list manager inspired by ezmlm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995933
--- Comment #1 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the [ ] Manual check required, you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mlmmj
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, BSD
(4 clause). 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/mcpierce/Packaging/reviews/995933-mlmmj/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 67 files.
Not a blocker, but maybe consider a -doc subpackage?
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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 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
[Bug 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jq-1.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jq-1.3-2.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 1020961] Review Request: jq - Command-line JSON processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020961 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jq-1.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jq-1.3-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 CC||limburg...@gmail.com --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- I see you just got sponsored, so you can add yourself in pkgdb now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
