[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283



--- Comment #32 from Mosaab Alzoubi  ---
gnulib-tests is required for building modules, so added to Requires.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753

Michal Srb  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Michal Srb  ---
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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: If tests are skipped during package build explain why it was needed in a
 comment
[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
 springframework-batch-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license t

[Bug 881753] Review Request: springframework-batch - Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks!
yes, sure

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: springframework-batch
Short Description: Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing
Owners: gil msrb
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC: java-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 881753] Review Request: springframework-batch - Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michal Srb from comment #10)
> The package looks good, just one non-blocker:
> [!]: Latest version is packaged.
> Latest stable version is 2.2.2:
> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-batch/releases

yes, but for now there are unavailable build deps
org.springframework.data
depend on querydsl 
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/querydsl-3.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/querydsl.spec

spring-data-commons
spring-data-mongodb
spring-data-neo4j
spring-data-gemfire
spring-data-redis
org.springframework.amqp: spring-amqp spring-rabbit

besides the fact that it depends on springframework 3.2.0.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 1024043] Review Request: python-arrow - Better dates and times for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024043

Pierre-YvesChibon  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 1024259] Review Request: python-chai - Easy to use mocking/stub framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024259



--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon  ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6110999

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1024259] New: Review Request: python-chai - Easy to use mocking/stub framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024259

Bug ID: 1024259
   Summary: Review Request: python-chai - Easy to use mocking/stub
framework
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pin...@pingoured.fr
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-chai.spec
SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org//python-chai-0.4.4-1.fc19.src.rpm

Description:
Chai provides a very easy to use api for mocking/stubbing your python
objects, patterned after the `Mocha `_ library
for Ruby.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1024259] Review Request: python-chai - Easy to use mocking/stub framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024259

Christopher Meng  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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Michal Minar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mimi...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #6 from Michal Minar  ---
Thank you Steve,

hopefully it's all covered in new SRPM:
  http://miminar.fedorapeople.org/openlmi-scripts-0.2.3-4.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 885357] Review Request: OpenShadingLanguage - Shader language libraries and compiler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885357

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cicku...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng  ---
If you don't response in 30 days I will submit this again by myself.

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 1004231] Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231



--- Comment #4 from Nils Philippsen  ---
One thing I didn't notice in my initial review is that the package name
lv2-sorcer differs from the tarball name openAV-sorcer which would be more in
line with the naming guidelines, cf.:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming

Here's the diff to my initial review:

...
[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.
[@]: License field in the package spec file seems to match the actual license,
but frankly how it's documented is a mess:

 spec file: GPLv3+
 (LICENSE text: GPLv2)
 README: "This is released under GPLv3.", but then "you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version."
 faust/main.dsp: GPLv3+
 faust/main.cpp: LGPLv2+
 gui/avtk: GPLv2+

 --> at least the README file shouldn't contradict itself and the license
file should be updated to GPLv3 IMO.
...
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 --> Package requires lv2 now.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
...
[!]: Package doesn't successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one
 supported primary architecture.
 --> I'll attach the build.log, it seems as if some build requirements are
missing (headers, pkgconfig files not found)
...
[@]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ...
 --> Why did you comment out the %global __provides_exclude_from line?
...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1004231] Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231



--- Comment #5 from Nils Philippsen  ---
Created attachment 817036
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=817036&action=edit
0.0.1-0.2 build.log

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 954074] Review Request: RemoteBox - Open Source VirtualBox Client with Remote Management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074



--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Preserving timestamps is somewhat controversial, and it is something where a
packager ought not to exxaggerate. It is not a MUST, but a SHOULD in some cases
only. Mostly: prebuilt files that are installed manually during %install. If
you need to modify a prebuilt file (even when using sed), don't try to too hard
to restore its original timestamp. Some packagers do that (e.g. because all
they do is to replace line delimiters), but the guidelines don't mandate it.

Preserving timestamps dates back to fedora.us, where we have found it to be a
nice idea with %doc files, so the user may recognise the age of old
software/documentation when visiting them in %_docdir. That has been considered
helpful also in other cases, such as default configuration files. After
installing a regularly updated package in 2013, you may notice that the
included documentation and config files are from 2001, and that may be a
helpful hint in various ways. As a plus: when running intrusion detection
software such as AIDE or Tripwire, you don't need to disable timestamp change
logging for such files in packages, which are updated often without changing
the file contents actually.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 881753] Review Request: springframework-batch - Tools for enterprise batch or bulk processing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753



--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1024043] Review Request: python-arrow - Better dates and times for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024043

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1024043] Review Request: python-arrow - Better dates and times for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024043



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1022908] Review Request: jline1 - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022908

Mikolaj Izdebski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|1022978 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022978
[Bug 1022978] plexus-interactivity: Port to jline 2
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1023429] Review Request: jberet - Batch Applications Implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023429

Marek Goldmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2013-10-29 08:16:28




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 1014607] Review Request: python-jsmin - JavaScript minifier

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014607

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2013-10-29 08:36:52



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(mimi...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #7 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
Almost :)

You added the versioned "openlmi-tools >= 0.8" to the "Requires:", but you
*really* need it there for the BuildRequires: as well. Make that change and
I'll approve.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Michal Minar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mimi...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #8 from Michal Minar  ---
Oops, forgot about that one. Thanks!
Please try another SRPM:
  http://miminar.fedorapeople.org/openlmi-scripts-0.2.3-5.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 1024134] Review Request: gust-antykwa-torunska-fonts - Two-element typeface for typesetting of small prints

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024134



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> Suggestions:
> 
> 1) good if unnecessary information is removed from font wiki page
> 
> 2) generally we create wiki pages with all the words in small letter
1-2: I didn't write the wiki page :) I already removed some stuff from there,
what exactly do you have in mind?

> 3) why this package name starts with gust? You want to use it as foundry? If
> yes good to add some reference like how gust is related to this font. When I
> search on google, I found its related in this link
> http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry
Yes, they (GUST="tex users group") have a bunch of fonts, so I intend to add at
least "gust-antykwa-pultawskiego-fonts" later on.

> 4) Upstream URL should be http://jmn.pl/en/antykwa-torunska/
Fixed.

> 5) good if all %global are written at top of spec
I moved one. %versiontag I kept, it is better to keep it next to %{version},
which it uses.

> 6) I don't think you need to %global shortname to be added as its only used
> once and not changing value so better remove it.
This specfile should be reusable without almost any changes for some of the
other fonts from gust, so this %global is in preparation for that.

> 7) %description text looks very big. Can it be reduced?
Definitely. Fixed.

> 8)You need to specify some priority to this config file. You can see the
> reference for this in /etc/fonts/conf.d/README. you can choose any number
> from 60 to 69
I used 69.

Thank you for the comments.

Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/gust-antykwa-torunska.spec
SRPM URL:
http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/gust-antykwa-torunska-fonts-2.08-2.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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
Package is approved. Please file an SCM admin request next:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_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 1019603] Review Request: openlmi-scripts - Client-side python modules and command line utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019603

Michal Minar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #10 from Michal Minar  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: openlmi-scripts
Short Description: Client-side python modules and command line utilities.
Owners: miminar
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 1019403] Review Request: gst-editing-services - Gstreamer editing services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019403



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
1. Fixed.
2. When I can get it to build.
3. Fixed.
4. Fixed.
5. Fixed.
6. Fixed.
7. Fixed.
8. Either works, but changed to your way.

SRPM:
http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gst-editing-services/gst-editing-services-1.1.90-2.fc20.20131015git71a6d75.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gst-editing-services/gst-editing-services.spec

Now if I can just figure out how to build the Python bindings, which pitivi
needs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1020839] Review Request: fedora-gooey-karma - GUI tool for adding karma to Bodhi system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020839



--- Comment #17 from Branislav Blaškovič  ---
(In reply to Terje Røsten from comment #15)
> Thanks for improvements, if you could post urls to your updated spec, srpm
> and do a koji scratch build it would help a lot :-)

It should be updated now.

(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #16)
> File at "Spec URL" differs from spec file in src.rpm at "SRPM URL". The %doc
> line is different.

Updated as mentioned above. I will try to keep it updated. My bad.

> If you kept those two lines in the review ticket up-to-date, it would become
> convenient to run "fedora-review -b 1020839" and let that tool perform some
> packaging checks.

You can try it now. It's working on my machine.

> > Summary: GUI tool for adding karma to Bodhi system.
> > Similar to fedora-easy-karma
> 
> What I find surprising here is that the %summary uses two terms not used in
> the %description: karma, Bodhi
> 
> I would drop the insider talk and write:
> 
>   Summary: GUI for sending feedback about installed Test Update packages
> 
> The %description could expand on that and mention the "Fedora Updates
> System" (bodhi), explain that users/testers can vote about test-updates
> using "karma" points. If you consider it relevant, you could mention the CLI
> tool fedora-easy-karma in the description, but I think they are different
> enough. And in a related search, fedora-easy-karma ought to turn up as well.

I've edited summary a little. Description is grabbed from fedora-easy-karma. 

> > desktop-file-install
> > desktop-file-validate
> 
> Using either one is sufficient. desktop-file-install also validates the
> specified file.
> 
> 
> > desktop-file-install \
> > --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
> > %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/fedora-gooey-karma.desktop
> 
> What this does is it reinstalls (!) and validates the existing desktop file
> found at the path inside the %buildroot. But if the desktop file is located
> in the %buildroot already, you only need to validate it. Hence I suggest you
> only run desktop-file-validate and not desktop-file-install. Using the
> latter makes more sense if you need to install the file actually, or if you
> want to use the tool's options to modify the .desktop file on-the-fly.

I've removed desktop-file-install as it's installed by Makefile.

> Files that are not supposed to be executed should not be mode +x:
> 
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/bodhiworker.py
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/browser.py
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/config.py
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/customgui.py
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/idlequeue.py
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/idlequeuedispatcher.py
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/packagesworker.py
> -rwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/sendkarma.py

Fixed. Thank you for bringing this up.

Icons should be installed as well. I've verified by installing in Gnome.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283



--- Comment #33 from Mosaab Alzoubi  ---
First Sample :

# Module Sample:
# %package %{module}
# Summary: %{summary_of_module}
# License: %{license_of_module}
#
# %build %{module}
# gnulib-build --create-testdir --dir=%{somedir} %{module}
# cd %{somedir}
# ./configure --prefix=/usr
# make %{?_smp_mflags}
#
# %install %{module}
# make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
# help2man -N --no-discard-stderr %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{module} >
%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{module}.1
#
# %files %{module}
# %{_bindir}/%{module}
# %{_mandir}/*/%{module}.*

Any ideas :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283



--- Comment #34 from Mosaab Alzoubi  ---
* gnulib-build = copy of gnulib-tool before edited :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778

Fedora Update System  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 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-3.fc20

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-3.fc19

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1001746] Review Request: python-theano - Mathematical expressions involving multidimensional arrays

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001746



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
Mario, thank you very much for the review.  I will drop the -doc dependency on
the main package when I import it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1001746] Review Request: python-theano - Mathematical expressions involving multidimensional arrays

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001746

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #6 from Jerry James  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-theano
Short Description: Mathematical expressions involving multidimensional arrays
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 1004231] Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231



--- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones  ---
With regards to the name, there's an unofficial standard for lv2 plugins. They
all are prefixed with lv2 . The install directory is sorcer.lv2, so I think
lv2-sorcer is more appropriate ( openAv is just a software entity created by
upstream) .

I have added the missing build requires and uncommented the filters.

Thanks


SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-sorcer.spec
SRPM:
http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-sorcer-0.0.1-0.3.20131013git4e35643.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 1008772] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772



--- Comment #8 from Scott Talbert  ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7)
> Package is fine, however I can find a udev rules in git, can you tell me if
> we need it, too?

No, we don't need it.  That is just a sample udev rules file that could be used
with some device.  Packages that use hidapi may wish to supply a udev rules
file, but hidapi shouldn't provide a packaged one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1008772] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772

Christopher Meng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng  ---
Then everything is fine at present.

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 1008772] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772



--- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng  ---
New Notes:


%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Please remove.

---

%post -n hidapi -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n hidapi -p /sbin/ldconfig


--->

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1024127] Review Request: lttv - Linux Trace Toolkit Viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024127



--- Comment #6 from Suchakra  ---
Aaah! Sorry. I must have been sleepy. I should have tested stuff before
updating and seen the error. Thanks for explaining me things in detail.

> Please use
> 
> %package devel

I'll do that and update you after incorporating other suggestions.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283



--- Comment #35 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #31)
> ok 
> 
> >1. rpmlint: Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnulib
> How to solve ?
C'mon, just add /usr/share/gnulib to %files.

Actually, if the gnulib requires gnulib-tests, and gnulib-tests require gnulib,
there's no point in keeping them separate, so gnulib-tests can go, and then
%files is simplified, since everything under /usr/share/gnulib is owned by the
main package.

> >2. Note: Macros in: gnulib-docs (description)
> >   Hm, this should be %{name}, not %{gnulib}. I think I added that by 
> > mistake.
> Done
> >3. Requires:java-headless must be added because of the java class
> added.
> >4. W: invalid-license LGPL2+
> corrected.
> 
> > Are you planning on providing a pre-built git-merge-changelog as a 
> > subpackage?
> Eric , I think if you write important modules for built as single packages,
> that's look nice.
Sorry, I can't parse that.

> Note new packages called ::
> gnulib-%{module}
Why not just 'git-merge-changelog'?

> >I had no idea about git-merge-changelog. Looks very useful, and I think it
> >should definitely be packaged in compiled form.
> 
> Zbigniew , It looks easy just must done before changing (dir) at gnulib-tool.
> 
> For git-merge-changelog just these command (from docs) :
> gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=%{somedir} git-merge-changelog
> cd %{somedir}
> configure,make.
Right.

Maybe add to %build (only partially tested):
./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=build-g-m-c git-merge-changelog
pushd build-g-m-c
%configure
make %{_smp_mflags} -C gllib git-merge-changelog
popd

Then there's the question if additional build requirements are needed. Maybe
not, since gcc is guaranteed to be present.

(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #34)
> * gnulib-build = copy of gnulib-tool before edited :)
I think there's no need to copy, I think. This can be done after the part which
creates MODULES.html.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1024114] Review Request: json - JavaScript Object Notation support in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024114

Mikolaj Izdebski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mizde...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski  ---
I would *strongly* recommend against reviving this package.

This library used to be free software, but recent releases are non-free
(proprietary software) and as such they cannot be included in Fedora.  All
attempts to convince upstream make free releases failed.

While it would be possible to keep maintaining the old (free) version I think
it's much better for us to migrate to different JSON libraries.  Packaging old
unmaintained libraries like this one while there are many alternatives is
against one of Fedora goals -- innovation.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1024114] Review Request: json - JavaScript Object Notation support in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024114

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||NotReady



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Since everybody seems to be convinced that this is a bad idea, I'll put the
package on hold for now, and investigate other options (json-lib,
android-json-org-java).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 907688] Review Request: python-urllib3 - Python HTTP library with thread-safe connection pooling and file post

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907688

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
Package python-urllib3-1.5-7.el6:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing python-urllib3-1.5-7.el6'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11982/python-urllib3-1.5-7.el6
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1015778] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-openid - A library for consuming and serving OpenID identities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
Package rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-3.fc20:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing
rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-3.fc20'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-20238/rubygem-ruby-openid-2.3.0-3.fc20
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 996042] Review Request: tinyxml2 - Simple, small and efficient C++ XML parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996042

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|tinyxml2-1.0.11-4.20130805g |tinyxml2-1.0.11-4.20130805g
   |it0323851.el6   |it0323851.el5



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
tinyxml2-1.0.11-4.20130805git0323851.el5, cppcheck-1.62-1.el5 has been pushed
to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 996042] Review Request: tinyxml2 - Simple, small and efficient C++ XML parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996042

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|tinyxml2-1.0.11-3.20130805g |tinyxml2-1.0.11-4.20130805g
   |it0323851.fc18  |it0323851.el6
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2013-08-22 20:35:31 |2013-10-29 14:06:35



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
tinyxml2-1.0.11-4.20130805git0323851.el6, cppcheck-1.62-1.el6 has been pushed
to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 995933] Re-Review Request: mlmmj - A simple and slim mailing list manager inspired by ezmlm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995933

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
Package mlmmj-1.2.18.0-2.el6:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing mlmmj-1.2.18.0-2.el6'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11988/mlmmj-1.2.18.0-2.el6
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283



--- Comment #36 from Mosaab Alzoubi  ---
> Why not just 'git-merge-changelog'? 
Because we working at (gnulib SRPM)
We can use ( Provides ) function.
> Then there's the question if additional build requirements are needed.
All gnulib R need to be BR to build any module package :)

--- Working now, I'll upload new package after 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 187317] Review Request: mindi - Creation of emergency boot disks/CDs using your kernel, tools and modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187317

Michael Schwendt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: mindi   |Review Request: mindi -
   ||Creation of emergency boot
   ||disks/CDs using your
   ||kernel, tools and modules



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 985065] Review Request: peg-solitaire - Board game played with pegs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985065

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283



--- Comment #37 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #36)
> > Why not just 'git-merge-changelog'? 
> Because we working at (gnulib SRPM)
> We can use ( Provides ) function.
The subpackage can be called anything we want. E.g. kernel.srpm delivers (among
many other) perf.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 985065] Review Request: peg-solitaire - Board game played with pegs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985065

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-19 (just because it faster tenfold than F20/F21 with
arm enabled)

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6113561

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent, but the only message may be ignored now:

Auriga ~/Desktop: rpmlint peg-solitaire-*
peg-solitaire.src:26: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build qmake-qt4
PREFIX=%{buildroot}/%{_prefix} %{name}.pro

^^^ This should actually go into %install stage but I don't insist on fixing
this right now.

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Auriga ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv3
or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum peg-solitaire-2.0.tar.gz*
71ac0a149a10c034051a7ac464fdff64205b45d770b29f76e9d251e6993cead3 
peg-solitaire-2.0.tar.gz
71ac0a149a10c034051a7ac464fdff64205b45d770b29f76e9d251e6993cead3 
peg-solitaire-2.0.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro).
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.

+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is validated with
desktop-file-validate in the %check section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


I don't see any issues, so 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 1023769] Review Request: golang-github-goerlang-dist - An implementation of Erlang node

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023769

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Taking this for a full 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 1023771] Review Request: golang-github-goerlang-epmd - Erlang Port Mapper Daemon protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023771

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Taking this for a full 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 985065] Review Request: peg-solitaire - Board game played with pegs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985065

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Many thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: peg-solitaire
Short Description: Board game played with pegs
Owners: mariobl
Branches: f19 f20

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 759818] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759818



--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Package for re-review should be based on the last build in the distribution:

http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/buffer/1.19/7.fc15/src/buffer-1.19-7.fc15.src.rpm
[ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7297 ]

In "buffer-1.19-4.fc19.src.rpm" found in this ticket, even the included source
tarball is a different one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 - Creation of emergency boot disks/CDs using your kernel, tools and modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187317



--- Comment #43 from Michael Schwendt  ---
The "Spec URL" and "SRPM URL" lines in review tickets make it possible to run
"fedora-review -b 187317" for this ticket.

Spec URL: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/19/x86_64/mindi.spec
SRPM URL:
ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/19/x86_64/mindi-2.1.620130730020540-0.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 1023769] Review Request: golang-github-goerlang-dist - An implementation of Erlang node

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023769



--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6114012

$ rpmlint -i -v *golang-github-goerlang-dist.src: I: checking
golang-github-goerlang-dist.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/goerlang/dist (timeout 10 seconds)
golang-github-goerlang-dist.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 5, tab: line 1)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

golang-github-goerlang-dist.src: I: checking-url
https://github.com/goerlang/dist/archive/453dec63ea12c128128f9d91b11a82dd570119a0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
golang-github-goerlang-dist-devel.noarch: I: checking
golang-github-goerlang-dist-devel.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C An
implementation of Erlang node.
Summary ends with a dot.

golang-github-goerlang-dist-devel.noarch: I: checking-url
https://github.com/goerlang/dist (timeout 10 seconds)
golang-github-goerlang-dist.spec:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 5, tab: line 1)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

golang-github-goerlang-dist.spec: I: checking-url
https://github.com/goerlang/dist/archive/453dec63ea12c128128f9d91b11a82dd570119a0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


There's one rather cosmetic problem in your spec file. I suggest to use spaces,
this way the spec file looks the same in all text editors, regardless of the
configured tab width.

I'm not really happy with the folder ownerships. It seems all your
golang-github-goerlang-* packages own the folder path
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/goerlang. Well, we have some cases where
packages may do so, for example for gtk-doc. But in this early state of
packaging, you could create a dummy package named
golang-github-goerlang-filesystem which owns this folder. I assume the
arch-dependent packages in Fedora >=19 and EPEL >=7 use the same folder, so
there we couldn't get any problems with.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1023671] Review Request: knapsen - Schnapsen card game for KDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023671

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@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 1023671] Review Request: knapsen - Schnapsen card game for KDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023671



--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
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]: 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:
 "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1023671-knapsen/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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in knapsen
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
 file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: P

[Bug 1023671] Review Request: knapsen - Schnapsen card game for KDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023671

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package approved !

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1022584] Review Request: qpid-qmf - The QPID Management Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022584



--- Comment #8 from Darryl L. Pierce  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
> You didn't reply to the comments about python installation path.
> I still see /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_cqmf2.so, etc, in
> python-qpid-qmf package. This is really bad, since it puts all those private
> and non-private names in the global python module namespace.

Sorry, totally overlooked that, my bad.

This package review revealed a bug in our installation that I've fixed [1] and
included in this updated package. So the installation for qmfgen is now fixed.

Regarding polluting the global namespace, I'm not sure how that's occurring
with _cqmf2.so being in the root directory for site packages. Since you still
have to specifically import the package, the code within does not wind up in an
unnamed space. Instead, that shared library is loaded by the cqmf2.py file
which requires the library be in the same directory.

Doing the following:

$ sudo yum whatprovides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/*.so

shows there are many, many other packages that are also deliver shared
libraries in the root directory. So that doesn't seem to be a Bad Thing (tm).
:D

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5273

Updated spec:  http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-qmf.spec
Updated SRPM: 
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qpid-qmf-0.24-13.fc19.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6114003

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Will try and get you a formal review soon. :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1023671] Review Request: knapsen - Schnapsen card game for KDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023671

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Many thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: knapsen
Short Description: Schnapsen card game for KDE
Owners: mariobl
Branches: f19 f20

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Taking this for a full review. Be patient, will need some days.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719



--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
some general quick questions: 

- Why a prerelease? Is there some compelling thing in the prerelease thats
needed over the last stable?

- Prerelease versioning is a bit off. See: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Something like: 
Version:5.3.4p1
Release:0.1%{?prerelease:.%{prerelease}}%{?dist}
?

- Since this is a long running process, might be worth adding hardening flags?
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1020014] Review Request: python-pylcdsysinfo - Python interface to Coldtears Electronics LCD Sys Info device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pylcdsysinfo-0-0.8.20131014git.fc20 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pylcdsysinfo-0-0.8.20131014git.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 1016767] Review Request: htrace - Tracing framework for java based distributed systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016767

Pete MacKinnon  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment #815004|0   |1
is obsolete||
 Attachment #817190||review+
  Flags||



--- Comment #3 from Pete MacKinnon  ---
Created attachment 817190
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=817190&action=edit
review pass

Looks good

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1016767] Review Request: htrace - Tracing framework for java based distributed systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016767

Pete MacKinnon  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 1024168] Review Request: rubygem-opengl - An OpenGL wrapper for Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024168



--- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer  ---

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- The comment "# example/NeHe: KILLED (license unclear)" should read
  "examples/NeHe" with an "s".

- examples/misc/OGLBench.rb and examples/misc/trislam.rb are licensed "GPL+ or
  Artistic". I think the -doc subpackage License should be "MIT and BSD and
  (GPL+ or Artistic)". We would also need to include a copy of the GPL+ license
  in the RPM. Eg. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.txt

- Do we need to ship Manifest.txt? I'm thinking we could exclude it,
  particularly from the main RPM.

- It's not immediately obvious why we need to use create-clean-opengl-gem.sh to
  regenerate the gem. Would you mind adding a sentence to the top of this
  script?  "We need to regenerate the gem in order to remove files with unclear
  licenses." or something like that.

- Please add %{_isa} to the -doc package requirements.
  Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

- Please remove the trailing whitespace after Requires: ruby(rubygems)

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 No -devel package present or needed.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: See "Issues" above.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
 GPL license text is missing from the -doc package.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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

Ruby:
[ ]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro

[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283



--- Comment #38 from Mosaab Alzoubi  ---
Some problem (I can't solve)

Main package (gnulib) is noarch.
New sub package (git-merge-changelog) arched.



Now I can't build and have this message :

error: line 153: Only noarch subpackages are supported: BuildArch: noarch
noarch




Any ideas ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 954074] Review Request: RemoteBox - Open Source VirtualBox Client with Remote Management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074

Scott Talbert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Scott Talbert  ---
Latest rev looks good to me!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1008772] Review Request: hidapi - Library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772



--- Comment #11 from Scott Talbert  ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10)
> New Notes:
> 
> 
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> 
> Please remove.
> 
> ---
> 
> %post -n hidapi -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -n hidapi -p /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> 
> --->
> 
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

Fixes incorporated.
SPEC: http://www.techie.net/~talbert/hidapi/hidapi.spec
SRPM: http://www.techie.net/~talbert/hidapi/hidapi-0.7.0-2.a88c724.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 1022584] Review Request: qpid-qmf - The QPID Management Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022584



--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Darryl L. Pierce from comment #8)
> Regarding polluting the global namespace, I'm not sure how that's occurring
> with _cqmf2.so being in the root directory for site packages. Since you
> still have to specifically import the package, the code within does not wind
> up in an unnamed space. Instead, that shared library is loaded by the
> cqmf2.py file which requires the library be in the same directory.
> 
> Doing the following:
> 
> $ sudo yum whatprovides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/*.so
> 
> shows there are many, many other packages that are also deliver shared
> libraries in the root directory. So that doesn't seem to be a Bad Thing
> (tm). :D
I still think it's very ugly, and should be avoided. But it's an upstream
issue, not something that is subject during package review, if the package
actually works. Still I'd strongly suggest to move the modules under a common
namespace at some point.

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
 Note: See rpmlint output
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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)

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:
 "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/zbyszek/fedora/1022584-qpid-qmf/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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as 

[Bug 1024114] Review Request: json - JavaScript Object Notation support in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024114

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
 Whiteboard|NotReady|
Last Closed||2013-10-29 20:32:09



--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
android-json-org-java works perfectly, no need for this crap.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1023848] Review Request: closure-compiler - JavaScript minifier and checker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023848

Bug 1023848 depends on bug 1024114, which changed state.

Bug 1024114 Summary: Review Request: json - JavaScript Object Notation support 
in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024114

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 954074] Review Request: RemoteBox - Open Source VirtualBox Client with Remote Management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074



--- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng  ---
Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: RemoteBox
Short Description: Open Source VirtualBox Client with Remote Management
Owners: cicku
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 954074] Review Request: RemoteBox - Open Source VirtualBox Client with Remote Management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074

Christopher Meng  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 982255] Re-Review Request: labyrinth - A light weight mind mapping tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982255

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|labyrinth-0.6-1.fc19|labyrinth-0.6-3.fc18
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2013-08-02 17:59:44 |2013-10-29 21:51:02



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
labyrinth-0.6-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1018541] Review Request: libreplaygain - Gain analysis library from Musepack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018541

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||libreplaygain-0-0.1.2011081
   ||0svn475.fc19
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2013-10-29 21:52:06



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
libreplaygain-0-0.1.20110810svn475.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1018546] Review Request: musepack-libmpc - Living audio compression

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546

Bug 1018546 depends on bug 1018541, which changed state.

Bug 1018541 Summary: Review Request: libreplaygain - Gain analysis library from 
Musepack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018541

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1016200] Review Request: (unorphan) global - Source code tag system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016200

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||global-6.2.9-3.fc19
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2013-10-29 21:54:37



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
global-6.2.9-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 982255] Re-Review Request: labyrinth - A light weight mind mapping tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982255

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|labyrinth-0.6-3.fc18|labyrinth-0.6-3.fc19



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
labyrinth-0.6-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 996311] Review Request: perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read and Write STL (STereo Lithography) format files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996311

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-5
   ||.fc18
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2013-10-29 21:57:45



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 996311] Review Request: perl-CAD-Format-STL - Read and Write STL (STereo Lithography) format files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996311

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-5 |perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-5
   |.fc18   |.fc19



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-CAD-Format-STL-0.2.1-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313

Fedora Update System  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 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.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 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.fc18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315

Fedora Update System  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 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.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 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.fc18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1023848] Review Request: closure-compiler - JavaScript minifier and checker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023848



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
So, I've now used this to build zlib.js, and it seems to work, yay!

Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/closure-compiler.spec
SRPM URL:
http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/closure-compiler-20131014-2.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 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.fc18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.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 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316

Fedora Update System  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 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317

Fedora Update System  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 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.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