[Bug 1025095] Review Request: rubygem-goocanvas1 - Ruby binding of GooCanvas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025095 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Looks good to me! 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 1025581] Review Request: percona-xtrabackup - Online backup for MySQL, MariaDB and Percona Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025581
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Stewart Smith from comment #2)
4. Please remove these obsoleted lines for ~EPEL5:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
[ %{buildroot} != '/' ] rm -rf %{buildroot}
%defattr(-,root,root)
%clean
Done. Would this affect building for EPEL for CentOS/RHEL5?
Yes, it will affect.
From Fedora 10/RHEL6 we don't need these but on RHEL5 they are still needed.
Does this tool work well on RHEL5+EPEL5?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1017767] Review Request: google-crosextra-carlito-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Calibri font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017767 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1025628 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1017766] Review Request: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts - Sans-serif font metric-compatible with Cambria font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017766 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1025629 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025110] Review Request: polari - Internet Relay Chat client for GNOME 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025110 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andrea.v...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 983356] Review Request: pelican - Static site generator that supports Markdown and reST syntax.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983356 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977122] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-cli - The grunt command-line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977122 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 926968] Review Request: php-MiniTemplator - Compact template engine for HTML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926968 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923959] Review Request: JOrtho - A spell checker for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923959 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 843646] Review Request: sugar-india - Game about the geography of India
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832698] Review Request: CERT Triage tools - a gdb extension similar to microsoft's !exploitable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- This ticket is in an odd state... Not ASSIGNED, and in fact assigned to nobody anyway, but the fedora-review? flag is set. I set it back, except the needinfo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825461] Review Request: arm-cortex_m-eabi - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at ARM Cortex-M devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825461 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812526] Review Request: kolab-webadmin - Kolab Groupware Web Administration Panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812526 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans - Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025095] Review Request: rubygem-goocanvas1 - Ruby binding of GooCanvas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025095 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you! I will surely review your package later. Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-goocanvas1 Short Description: Ruby binding of GooCanvas Owners: mtasaka Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024688] Review Request: erlang-cl - OpenCL binding for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024688 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Thanks, Mario! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-cl Short Description: OpenCL binding for Erlang Owners: peter Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: erlang-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 805304] Review Request: faf - Bug analysis framework for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805304 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783064] Review Request: python-omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783064 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 739263] Review Request: sugar-bounce - Fast paced 3D action game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739263 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Nothing has happened for almost two years. I close this ticket, adding FE-DEADREVIEW. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this 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 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718270 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Python macros have changed recently:
%{__python} %{__python2}
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros.
Even %{python2_sitelib} instead of %{python_sitelib} is available (not for
EPEL), although not mentioned in the guidelines.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025368] Review Request: python-jira - A library to ease use of the JIRA 5 REST APIs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025368
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com 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 mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Python macros have changed recently:
%{__python} %{__python2}
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros.
Even %{python2_sitelib} instead of %{python_sitelib} is available (not for
EPEL), although not mentioned in the guidelines.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025100] Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025100
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com 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 mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
rubygem-riddle.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-riddle.noarch: I: checking-url http://pat.github.io/riddle/ (timeout 10
seconds)
rubygem-riddle.src: I: checking
rubygem-riddle.src: I: checking-url http://pat.github.io/riddle/ (timeout 10
seconds)
rubygem-riddle.src: I: checking-url https://rubygems.org/gems/riddle-1.5.9.gem
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-riddle-doc.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-riddle-doc.noarch: I: checking-url http://pat.github.io/riddle/
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-riddle.spec: I: checking-url https://rubygems.org/gems/riddle-1.5.9.gem
(timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint is silent.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
MIT
There are GPL licensed files in the tarball, but they don't land in the
package (Sphinx PHP files).
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
1419b988bf3738cffefad1a2d21c13e1691b8513dcce6f16c2988ff2d1ce4db3
riddle-1.5.9.gem
1419b988bf3738cffefad1a2d21c13e1691b8513dcce6f16c2988ff2d1ce4db3
riddle-1.5.9.gem.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable
[Bug 1020108] Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020108 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-11-01 05:34:52 --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1025100 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025100] Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025100 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1020108 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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 1018004] Review Request: rubygem-descendants_tracker - Module that adds descendant tracking to a class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018004 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Except for files list, I have nothing to ask you to modify. Then: * Please check if the following files really need being packaged in binary rpm: - Gemfile - Guardfile - Rakefile * spec/ directory and anything below it is usually meant to be used only on test suite, and current Ruby guideline recommends not to package it: ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby?rd=Packaging/Ruby#Running_test_suites notice Do not ship tests * I recommend to move README.md to main package. ? I don't object to including TODO file, however please note that currently this file is empty. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1007972] Review Request: hawaii-icon-theme - Icon themes for the Hawaii desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007972
Pier Luigi Fiorini pierluigi.fior...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pierluigi.fior...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Pier Luigi Fiorini pierluigi.fior...@gmail.com ---
elegant-symbolic are derived from gnome-icon-themes-symbolic whose COPYING file
states icons are CC-BY-SA 3.0 (see
https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-icon-theme-symbolic/tree/COPYING).
$ rpm -qi gnome-icon-theme-symbolic | grep -i license
License : CC-BY-SA
elegant are derived from elementary, the COPYING file is copied from there.
$ rpm -qi elementary-icon-theme | grep -i license
License : GPLv2
In fact the elementary-icon-theme has icons with CC-BY-SA 2.0 too:
$ cd /usr/share/icons/elementary
$ find -name '*.svg' |xargs awk -F\ '/\/licenses\// {print $2}' |sort |uniq -c
48 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
18 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Latest version (0.1.91) also has mouse cursors which are LGPL 2.1 since are
derived from gnome-themes-standard.
Do I need to split icons into multiple repositories upstream?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- The question whether lpf-* packages are allowed in Fedora is by the fpc [1]. This might mean that this package won't go into fedora. OTOH, the review process is the same here and in rpmfusion, so I guess we could continue that being aware that where the packet eventually goes is up tp the fpc. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- NEWS? ping. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- I think there's a leftover in the spec file, the package does not build: + /usr/share/lpf/scripts/lpf-setup-pkg /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-1.fc19.x86_64 /builddir/build/SOURCES/skype.spec.in + desktop-file-validate /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop: file does not exist error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FhzCAC (%install) You can probably just remove line 33 of the spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025103] Review Request: rubygem-bourne - Adds test spies to mocha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025103
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com 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 mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *rubygem-bourne.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-bourne.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rspec - spec, r
spec
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-bourne.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -
marcher, matches, catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-bourne.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jferris -
Ferris
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-bourne.noarch: I: checking-url http://github.com/thoughtbot/bourne
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-bourne.src: I: checking
rubygem-bourne.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rspec - spec, r
spec
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-bourne.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher - marcher,
matches, catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-bourne.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jferris - Ferris
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-bourne.src: I: checking-url http://github.com/thoughtbot/bourne
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-bourne.src: I: checking-url https://rubygems.org/gems/bourne-1.5.0.gem
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-bourne-doc.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-bourne-doc.noarch: I: checking-url http://github.com/thoughtbot/bourne
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-bourne.spec: I: checking-url https://rubygems.org/gems/bourne-1.5.0.gem
(timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Ignorable spelling errors only.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
MIT
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
b96492d4805ca581173bc9e97b7a31f3986d749f94d42abc7bfef20d6ab7a8a1
bourne-1.5.0.gem
b96492d4805ca581173bc9e97b7a31f3986d749f94d42abc7bfef20d6ab7a8a1
bourne-1.5.0.gem.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST:
[Bug 1020309] Review Request: kde-connect - KDE Connect client for communication with smartphones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020309 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mbr...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(mbr...@redhat.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Updated, new links: spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/2/lpf-skype.spec srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/2/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc20.src.rpm Changelog: * Fri Nov 1 2013 Alec Leamas lea...@nowhere.net - 4.2.0.11-2 - Adding README - Fix typo. Keeping %install section, it looks sane and works for me. Puzzled why it doesn't for you... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986051] Review Request: dtv-scan-tables - Digital TV scan tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986051 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Till, please change the license to Public Domain as proposed by Spot and provide new files. Then I'll take 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 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #9 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Quick updates: Why a prerelease? Is there some compelling thing in the prerelease thats needed over the last stable? The thing is the latest stable caused a lot of portable issues and required some patches - that's the reason why I'm trying to avoid it and not to package it. All the things needed are integrated into recent snapshots. The next stable release which comes in the next week or two will provide all that functionality out of box - when it comes I'll switch the prerelease support off, and planning to package only stable versions in the future. Meanwhile, working with prerelease builds allows to prepare valid spec which meets all the requirements by then. Since this is a long running process, might be worth adding hardening flags? I'll investigate it (according my latest e-mail answer). Seems there is an issue in Opensmtpd portable layer, just filled a 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 991689] Review Request: dislocker - Utility to access BitLocker encrypted volumes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991689 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Scratch build fails for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6122199 build.log: gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -DPROGNAME=\recovery_password\ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -I/usr/include -I../../ -L/usr/lib64 -c -o recovery_password.o recovery_password.c recovery_password.c:28:27: fatal error: polarssl/sha2.h: No such file or directory #include polarssl/sha2.h ^ compilation terminated. Also fails for el5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6122205 build.log: error: Group field must be present in package: fuse-dislocker Building target platforms: ppc Building for target ppc Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024993] Review Request: lin_guider - Astronomical autoguiding program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024993 --- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- It is my first package, so I need a sponsor. Depends on the package 'firmware-ccd' (will be soon). I'm not a sponsor so I can't do an official review of your first packages (you need to be sponsored first of all). However, I can to do an initial review to relieve your (prospective) sponsor of some of his work, as soon as even the 'firmware-ccd' package will be ready. For everything else it depends by yourself and by your sponsor (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group). :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024136] Review Request: gedit-template - Gedit plugin to create new files from templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136 --- Comment #21 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Yes it is, I'm not a packager I'll be soon :) Your package Will be APROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025102] Review Request: masscan - Port scanner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025102 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Alias||masscan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014619] Review Request: enlightenment - Enlightenment window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014619 Vladimir konstantin...@yandex.ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||konstantin...@yandex.ru --- Comment #29 from Vladimir konstantin...@yandex.ru --- hi! I did a yum install enlightenment on two machines with Fedora 19 and Fedora 20. It works fine if you do not pursue the nuances. But the re-entry to the session impossible. Enlightenment_start conclusion of the console: ESTART: 0.0 [0.0] - Begin Startup ESTART: 0.00010 [0.00010] - Signal Trap ESTART: 0.00011 [0.2] - Signal Trap Done ESTART: 0.00015 [0.3] - Eina Init ESTART: 0.00152 [0.00138] - Eina Init Done ESTART: 0.00153 [0.1] - Determine Prefix [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:25[0m = [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:26[0m Enlightenment relocation handling [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:27[0m = [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:28[0m PREFIX: /usr [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:29[0m BINDIR: /usr/bin [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:30[0m LIBDIR: /usr/lib64 [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:31[0m DATADIR: /usr/share/enlightenment [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:32[0m LOCALE: /usr/share/locale [32;1mINF[0me[32;1m[0me_prefix.c:33[0m = ESTART: 0.00179 [0.00026] - Determine Prefix Done ESTART: 0.00184 [0.5] - Environment Variables ESTART: 0.00188 [0.4] - Environment Variables Done ESTART: 0.00189 [0.1] - Parse Arguments ESTART: 0.00190 [0.1] - Parse Arguments Done ESTART: 0.00190 [0.1] - Eet Init ESTART: 0.01811 [0.01620] - Eet Init Done ESTART: 0.01815 [0.4] - Ecore Init ESTART: 0.02246 [0.00431] - Ecore Init Done ESTART: 0.02249 [0.3] - EIO Init ESTART: 0.02255 [0.6] - EIO Init Done ESTART: 0.02257 [0.1] - Ecore Event Handlers ESTART: 0.02258 [0.1] - Ecore Event Handlers Done ESTART: 0.02258 [0.1] - Ecore_File Init ESTART: 0.03137 [0.00879] - Ecore_File Init Done ESTART: 0.03141 [0.4] - Ecore_Con Init ESTART: 0.03141 [0.1] - Ecore_Con Init Done ESTART: 0.03142 [0.1] - Ecore_Ipc Init ESTART: 0.03144 [0.2] - Ecore_Ipc Init Done ESTART: 0.03146 [0.1] - Ecore_X Init Enlightenment Error Enlightenment cannot initialize Ecore_X! Repeatability error: 1.yum install enlightenment 2.start a enlightenment 3.reboot sorry for my english thank you -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025102] Review Request: masscan - Port scanner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025102 --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Upstream is providing tarballs [1] for releases. [1] https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan/releases -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024688] Review Request: erlang-cl - OpenCL binding for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024688 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024688] Review Request: erlang-cl - OpenCL binding for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024688 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025095] Review Request: rubygem-goocanvas1 - Ruby binding of GooCanvas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025095 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025095] Review Request: rubygem-goocanvas1 - Ruby binding of GooCanvas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025095 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021261] Review Request: kipi-plugins-elegant-theme - elegant theme for html export
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021261
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com 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 #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6122293
$ rpmlint -i -v *kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.noarch: I: checking
kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.noarch: I: checking-url
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Elegant+theme+for+DigiKam%2BKipi+HTML+Expo?content=61904
(timeout 10 seconds)
kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.src: I: checking
kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.src: I: checking-url
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Elegant+theme+for+DigiKam%2BKipi+HTML+Expo?content=61904
(timeout 10 seconds)
kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.src: I: checking-url
http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~wjarosz/kde-look/elegant-1.4.0.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
kipi-plugins-elegant-theme.spec: I: checking-url
http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~wjarosz/kde-look/elegant-1.4.0.tar.gz (timeout 10
seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The warning is ignorabele, because the tarball doesn't contain any docs.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
CC-BY
[.] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
e20bcf359c0a2d337920410229a1a96e521d77260834c511bfe04e1f3e80810e
elegant-1.4.0.tar.gz
e20bcf359c0a2d337920410229a1a96e521d77260834c511bfe04e1f3e80810e
elegant-1.4.0.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files
[Bug 1018905] Review Request: scap-security-guide - Security guidance and baselines in SCAP formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scap-security-guide-0.1-15.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scap-security-guide-0.1-15.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 1007972] Review Request: hawaii-icon-theme - Icon themes for the Hawaii desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007972 --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- (In reply to Pier Luigi Fiorini from comment #5) Do I need to split icons into multiple repositories upstream? No need to. We just need to be sure that all applicable licenses are listed in package's License tag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025102] Review Request: masscan - Port scanner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025102 --- Comment #10 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com --- Ok, great, maybe it was an early update :).. I will recreate the package removing the pre-release tags, in a few days i will do that... Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024688] Review Request: erlang-cl - OpenCL binding for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024688 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-cl-1.2.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-cl-1.2.1-1.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 1024688] Review Request: erlang-cl - OpenCL binding for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024688 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024688] Review Request: erlang-cl - OpenCL binding for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024688 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-cl-1.2.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-cl-1.2.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025292] Review Request: python-twiggy - A Pythonic logger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025292 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Done! Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-twiggy.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-twiggy-0.4.5-2.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 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- I made another release which just modernizes the python2 rpmmacros. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-oauthlib.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-oauthlib-0.6.0-2.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 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-oauthlib Short Description: An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic Owners: ralph Branches: f20 f19 f18 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 1025368] Review Request: python-jira - A library to ease use of the JIRA 5 REST APIs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025368 --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Done! Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-jira.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-jira-0.13-2.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 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Updated the rpm macros as per Mario's suggestion. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-requests-oauthlib.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-requests-oauthlib-0.4.0-2.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 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-requests-oauthlib Short Description: OAuthlib authentication support for Requests Owners: ralph Branches: f20 f19 f18 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 1022584] Review Request: qpid-qmf - The QPID Management Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022584 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-11-01 10:04:14 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #4) Keeping %install section, it looks sane and works for me. Puzzled why it doesn't for you... I'm sorry but it's not working with mock. The only source is the Skype spec file; there's nothing installing it in place: Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5VStda + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + /usr/bin/mkdir -p lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + cd lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + cp /builddir/build/SOURCES/README README + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2dOP41 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Sl7rWT + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + '[' /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 ++ dirname /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 + mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT + mkdir /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 + cd lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + /usr/share/lpf/scripts/lpf-setup-pkg /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 /builddir/build/SOURCES/skype.spec.in + desktop-file-validate /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop: file does not exist RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Sl7rWT (%install) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- My bad, I did not run it in mock. BBL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894586] Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586 --- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Update to latest upstream release Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Osi.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Osi-0.106.2-1.fc21.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 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- README installed in wrong section. Fixed, now builds in mock/rawhide for me. Updated in-place, same links release, changelog 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 986051] Review Request: dtv-scan-tables - Digital TV scan tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986051 --- Comment #6 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #5) Till, please change the license to Public Domain as proposed by Spot and provide new files. Then I'll take this for a full review. Thank you, here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/dtv-scan-tables.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/dtv-scan-tables-0-2.20130703gitd913405.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 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-oauthlib-0.6.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-oauthlib-0.6.0-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-oauthlib-0.6.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-oauthlib-0.6.0-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-oauthlib-0.6.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-oauthlib-0.6.0-2.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 1024136] Review Request: gedit-template - Gedit plugin to create new files from templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136 --- Comment #22 from Germán Racca gra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #21) Yes it is, I'm not a packager I'll be soon :) Your package Will be APROVED. Will be? That's funny hehe... OK, good luck with the packaging! :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
--- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #7)
Fixed, now builds in mock/rawhide for me.
Still not able to build in mock, the desktop part has not changed.
Source0:skype.spec.in
Source1:README
%install
# lpf-setup-pkg [eula] topdir specfile [sources...]
/usr/share/lpf/scripts/lpf-setup-pkg %{buildroot} %{SOURCE0}
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
cp %{SOURCE1} README
Where should the desktop file come from?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894586] Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com 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 894587] Review Request: coin-or-Clp - Coin-or linear programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894587 --- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Clp.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Clp-1.15.3-1.fc21.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 894588] Review Request: coin-or-Cgl - Cut Generation Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894588 --- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cgl.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cgl-0.58.2-1.fc21.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 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-requests-oauthlib-0.4.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-requests-oauthlib-0.4.0-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-requests-oauthlib-0.4.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-requests-oauthlib-0.4.0-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-requests-oauthlib-0.4.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-requests-oauthlib-0.4.0-2.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 894586] Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- The compilation fails during the make test in rawhide:
...
g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64
-mtune=generic -DOSI_BUILD -Wl,-z -Wl,relro -o .libs/unitTest unitTest.o
OsiTestSolver.o OsiTestSolverInterface.o OsiTestSolverInterfaceIO.o
OsiTestSolverInterfaceTest.o ../src/OsiCommonTest/.libs/libOsiCommonTests.so
../src/Osi/.libs/libOsi.so -lCoinUtils -lbz2 -lz -lm -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lbz2
- Consider the UnversionedDocdirs change starting from F20
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs).
The directory '%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}' could become a problem in future.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894586] Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586 --- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Thanks, I noticed the unversioned docdir and was updating the bug report but got a mid air collision :-) Now also corrected the missing build requires for make check: - Correct missing bzip2 build requires (#894586#c4). - Use unversioned docdir (#894586#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Osi.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Osi-0.106.2-2.fc21.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 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 --- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Vol.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Vol-1.4.1-1.fc21.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 1020108] Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020108 --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Sorry, juggling too many packages :) Thanks for finding this duplicate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025100] Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025100 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks very much for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-riddle Short Description: An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby Owners: ktdreyer 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 1025103] Review Request: rubygem-bourne - Adds test spies to mocha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025103 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks very much for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-bourne Short Description: Adds test spies to mocha Owners: ktdreyer 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 929005] Review Request: rubygem-awestruct - A framework for creating static HTML sites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929005 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||wi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wi...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025100] Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025100 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025100] Review Request: rubygem-riddle - An API for Sphinx, written in and for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025100 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025103] Review Request: rubygem-bourne - Adds test spies to mocha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025103 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025103] Review Request: rubygem-bourne - Adds test spies to mocha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025103 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018004] Review Request: rubygem-descendants_tracker - Module that adds descendant tracking to a class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018004 --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks - I've made all your suggested changes. Here's the newest version. * Fri Nov 01 2013 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com - 0.0.3-2 - Updates for Fedora package review request (RHBZ #1018004) - Remove developer-only files during %%prep - Exclude test suite from binary RPMs - Move README to main package Specific changes (in git): http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-descendants_tracker.git/commit/?id=b1a808889bd1e28299e0e4f04f820c9fdb758c9d Spec: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-descendants_tracker.spec SRPM: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-descendants_tracker-0.0.3-2.fc21.src.rpm F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6123339 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894594] Review Request: coin-or-Bcp - Branch-Cut-Price Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894594 --- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcp.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcp-1.3.6-1.fc21.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 894586] Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- What's the owner of /usr/include/coin ?
Your (coin-*) packages place some files into this directory but maybe none owns
'/usr/include/coin'.
- Please, fix parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/coin-or-Osi/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/coin
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/coin
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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 coin-or-
Osi-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 894586] Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586 --- Comment #7 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Thanks again for the review. I am changing the coin-or-CoinUtils-devel package (the bottom in the dependency chain) to be the owner of /usr/include/coin. - Use proper _smp_flags macro (#894586#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Osi.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Osi-0.106.2-3.fc21.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
