[Bug 1025904] Review Request: solr - Ultra-fast Lucene-based Search Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025904 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1005782 (uimaj), 1005792, | |1005796, 1005800| Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005782 [Bug 1005782] Review Request: uimaj - Apache UIMA is an implementation of the OASIS-UIMA specifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 [Bug 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005796 [Bug 1005796] Review Request: langdetect - Language Detection Library for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005800 [Bug 1005800] Review Request: jsonic - Simple JSON encoder/decoder for 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 1005796] Review Request: langdetect - Language Detection Library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005796 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1025904 (solr) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025904 [Bug 1025904] Review Request: solr - Ultra-fast Lucene-based Search Server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005800] Review Request: jsonic - Simple JSON encoder/decoder for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005800 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1025904 (solr) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025904 [Bug 1025904] Review Request: solr - Ultra-fast Lucene-based Search Server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #9 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I don't really get it. It builds for me in mock on two different machines, and thus it should for you. You are using the rawhide buildroot i. e., mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 ... ? lpf is not available in fc19 nor f20 as of now, at least for me. The desktop file is created by lpf-setup-pkg. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024136] Review Request: gedit-template - Gedit plugin to create new files from templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136 --- Comment #25 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- An up-to-date pair of Spec URL: and SRPM URL: lines in the review ticket makes it convenient to run fedora-review -b 1024136, *and* it becomes obvious where to find the latest package among a growing number of comments in the ticket. I can only encourage package submitters to post fresh Spec/SRPM URLs and to increase the Release tag with every update of the package. The latter is already mentioned at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6126073
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-jira.src: I: checking
python-jira.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A library to ease use of the JIRA
5 REST APIs.
Summary ends with a dot.
python-jira.src: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jira-python
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-jira.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/j/jira-python/jira-python-0.13.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-jira.noarch: I: checking
python-jira.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-requests-oauthlib
You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded
explicit Requires: tags.
python-jira.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A library to ease use of the
JIRA 5 REST APIs.
Summary ends with a dot.
python-jira.noarch: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/pypi/jira-python
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-jira.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jirashell
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
python-jira.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/j/jira-python/jira-python-0.13.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
python-requests-oauthlib is named as a library, but no library in common sense.
A missing manpage is not up to you to fix. Contact the developer if it makes
sense to have a manpage, moreover if he could add a license file in future
releases.
The summary shouldn't end with a period. Please remove it, but this is rather a
post-review task.
-
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.
BSD
[.] 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 *
995cdace8cac68fd3189e0c19ae7fe283cbbcbf6a3442cba15f2da9fc303014d
jira-python-0.13.tar.gz
995cdace8cac68fd3189e0c19ae7fe283cbbcbf6a3442cba15f2da9fc303014d
jira-python-0.13.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
[Bug 895541] Review Request: ptbl - Periodic Table
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895541 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Comment #46 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Hi baptu. ptbl 2.0 is out since June 2013. Are you still interested to package this application ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #26 from Germán Racca gra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #25) An up-to-date pair of Spec URL: and SRPM URL: lines in the review ticket makes it convenient to run fedora-review -b 1024136, *and* it becomes obvious where to find the latest package among a growing number of comments in the ticket. I can only encourage package submitters to post fresh Spec/SRPM URLs and to increase the Release tag with every update of the package. The latter is already mentioned at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes I don't get it. What are the changes I have to make to the spec file? There was nothing to change, we agreed that the package has to be arched... or am I missing something? Please tell me if I do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #4) The mentioned exit() call might be somewhat critical. But it is not up to you to fix, please ask the upstream developers for a solution. Likewise for the no-ldconfig-symlink warning. All warnings are under resolution by upstream. I'm waiting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1013669] Review Request: python-couchdbkit - CouchDB framework in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013669
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6126151
$ rpmlint -i -v *
python-couchdbkit.noarch: I: checking
python-couchdbkit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dicts -
ducts, dicta, dict
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-couchdbkit.noarch: I: checking-url http://couchdbkit.org (timeout 10
seconds)
python-couchdbkit.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/python-couchdbkit/LICENSE
The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one
that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are
desired, and remove if not.
python-couchdbkit.src: I: checking
python-couchdbkit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dicts - ducts,
dicta, dict
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
python-couchdbkit.src: I: checking-url http://couchdbkit.org (timeout 10
seconds)
python-couchdbkit.src:38: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
python-couchdbkit.src: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/couchdbkit/couchdbkit-0.6.5.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
python-couchdbkit.spec:38: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
python-couchdbkit.spec: I: checking-url
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/couchdbkit/couchdbkit-0.6.5.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Please remove the executable bit from the license file. Escape the % in
comments with a second one. I have no further objections, once those have been
fixed, this package is ready for the final 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 1019428] Review Request: python-alchimia - A Python library that integrates Twisted with SqlAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428 --- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- No package builds yet...? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #27 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
It's only a misunderstanding. If there hasn't been an update, the original
Spec/SRPM links are still valid. After plenty of comments in the ticket, that's
not so obvious anymore, so reposting them doesn't hurt (albeit is not
mandatory).
[...]
In the %description:
By default this plugin looks for templates in ~/Templates.
You can change this by editing the source.
The second sentence is misleading. The installed plugin _is_ a source file,
since it's written in Python. However, editing is not really an option for RPM
package users, because the next update would overwrite the changes.
The plugin could evaluate XDG_TEMPLATES_DIR.
# python3 is pulled from gedit dependencies, so no need to install
explicitly
Requires: gedit%{?_isa}
Only one of gedit's current plugins depends on Python 3. Gedit itself does not.
Optimising dependencies is frowned upon. _This_ particular plugin requires
Python 3, so there ought to be a dependency.
$ rpmls -p gedit-template-0.0.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.plugin
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.py
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/LICENSE
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/README
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015326] Review Request: rubygem-hipchat - Ruby library to interact with HipChat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326
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 ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6126167
$ rpmlint -i -v *
rubygem-hipchat.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-hipchat.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/hipchat/hipchat-rb
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-hipchat.src: I: checking
rubygem-hipchat.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/hipchat/hipchat-rb
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-hipchat.src: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/hipchat-0.12.0.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-hipchat-doc.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-hipchat-doc.noarch: I: checking-url
https://github.com/hipchat/hipchat-rb (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-hipchat.spec: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/hipchat-0.12.0.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
[+] 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 *
79fd7f5cfd4d62fff8e0d46c1090b3ad9b198caaf7b84660f49369f4b3ed3bde
hipchat-0.12.0.gem
79fd7f5cfd4d62fff8e0d46c1090b3ad9b198caaf7b84660f49369f4b3ed3bde
hipchat-0.12.0.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: 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
[Bug 1004231] Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Appreciate the review! Thanks New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lv2-sorcer Short Description: A wave-table LV2 synth plugin Owners: bsjones Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004231] Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231 --- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- PS. I will correct the license file and raise the lv2- prefix on the packaging list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-jira Short Description: A library to ease use of the JIRA 5 REST APIs. 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 1025972] New: Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972 Bug ID: 1025972 Summary: Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: j...@di.uminho.pt QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/libsodium.spec SRPM URL: http://um-pe09-2.di.uminho.pt/fedora/libsodium-0.4.5-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Sodium is a portable, cross-compilable, installable, packageable crypto library based on NaCl, with a compatible API Fedora Account System Username: jpo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025972] Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972 --- Comment #1 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt --- Additional notes: * this package is a new requirement of ZeroMQ 4 (and CZMQ 2). * target distros: Fedora = 18 and EPEL6 * additional maintainers are welcome -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025972] Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972
--- Comment #2 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt ---
BTW, the specfile hack
---
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6
sed -i 's|_pkg_min_version=0.25|_pkg_min_version=0.23|g' configure
%endif
will be dropped for the next upstream release [1].
References:
[1] - Upstream pull request #93 (status: merged)
https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium/pull/93
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015326] Review Request: rubygem-hipchat - Ruby library to interact with HipChat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326 --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thank you very much Mario for the review! Would you mind setting the + flag for 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 1025977] New: Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 Bug ID: 1025977 Summary: Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mich...@acksyn.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp-1.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: (First package, I need a sponsor) Captcp is a free and open source program for TCP analysis of PCAP files. Normally recorded via Tcpdump or Wireshark. Captcp is an attempt to rewrite and bundle all common TCP analysis tools in one easy to use program: providing a clean and consistent command line syntax. Captcp is written in Python and easy extendable. Captcp is not a substitute for Tcpdump or Wireshark - it complements these tools instead. Fedora Account System Username: mbaldessari -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018004] Review Request: rubygem-descendants_tracker - Module that adds descendant tracking to a class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018004 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- * Well, one minor point is that %exclude %doc can simply be %exclude. * Also, you can simply add %exclude or using rm on %install for Gemfile and etc (instead of modifying gemspec), as you also use %exclude for other files However there are no blockers, approving. - This package (rubygem-descendants_tracker) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- (In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #4) * Well, one minor point is that %exclude %doc can simply be %exclude. Thanks, this was a typo. I'll adjust it before importing. * Also, you can simply add %exclude or using rm on %install for Gemfile and etc (instead of modifying gemspec), as you also use %exclude for other files You're right, maybe I ought to pick one or the other. I'm not keen on having a gemspec that lists a lot of extra files that the RPM doesn't actually ship, so I prefer to eliminate the files during %prep. On the other hand, we need the test suite to be available during %check, so we have to keep that in the gemspsec that and then %exclude it later. So both options seem to have disadvantages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thank you very much for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-descendants_tracker Short Description: Module that adds descendant tracking to a class 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 1025984] New: Review Request: rubygem-redis-namespace - Namespaces Redis commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025984 Bug ID: 1025984 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-redis-namespace - Namespaces Redis commands Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ktdre...@ktdreyer.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-redis-namespace.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-redis-namespace-1.3.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Adds a Redis::Namespace class which can be used to namespace calls to Redis. This is useful when using a single instance of Redis with multiple, different applications. Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6130441 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #28 from Germán Racca gra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #27)
It's only a misunderstanding. If there hasn't been an update, the original
Spec/SRPM links are still valid. After plenty of comments in the ticket,
that's not so obvious anymore, so reposting them doesn't hurt (albeit is not
mandatory).
Sorry for the misunderstanding, now I get it. I will update the spec file as
soon as I can implement your suggestions.
[...]
In the %description:
By default this plugin looks for templates in ~/Templates.
You can change this by editing the source.
The second sentence is misleading. The installed plugin _is_ a source file,
since it's written in Python. However, editing is not really an option for
RPM package users, because the next update would overwrite the changes.
The plugin could evaluate XDG_TEMPLATES_DIR.
To avoid any mistake, I think it's better to remove that last sentence (I will
suggest upstream the possibility to evaluate XDG_TEMPLATES_DIR).
# python3 is pulled from gedit dependencies, so no need to install
explicitly
Requires: gedit%{?_isa}
Only one of gedit's current plugins depends on Python 3. Gedit itself does
not. Optimising dependencies is frowned upon. _This_ particular plugin
requires Python 3, so there ought to be a dependency.
Not sure if I understand very well here. My logic is: Gedit requires Python 3
(because 'rpm -q --requires gedit' says 'python(abi) = 3.3'), and this plugin
requires Gedit.
$ rpmls -p gedit-template-0.0.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.plugin
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.py
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/LICENSE
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/README
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
Byte compiled files are present in my system:
rpmls -p gedit-template-0.0.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.plugin
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.py
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.pyc
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.pyo
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/LICENSE
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/README
Why is that?
Thanks for your comments!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Hi Michele. Use the macros instead of hard-coded directory names (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 #29 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
My logic is: Gedit requires Python 3 (because 'rpm -q --requires gedit'
says 'python(abi) = 3.3'), and this plugin requires Gedit.
This is okay, because _currently_ it works. Currently, package gedit contains
an explicit dependency on Python 3. But generally, you cannot guarantee that
such a dependency won't move to a different package (and actually, moved
dependencies have lead to run-time breakage before). gedit-template directly
needs Python 3, so that should be added as a package dependency.
Byte compiled files are present in my system:
That looks as if they have been bytecompiled for Python 2. The Python 3 based
__pycache__ dir is missing.
Why is that?
Try adding to the spec:
%global __python %{__python3}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.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 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.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 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015326] Review Request: rubygem-hipchat - Ruby library to interact with HipChat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #2) Thank you very much Mario for the review! Would you mind setting the + flag for fedora-review? Oops, forgotten... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 --- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org --- Hi Antonio, thanks for letting me know. I've uploaded fixed spec and srpm: Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp-1.6-2.fc20.src.rpm I increased the release tag, hope that is okay. Here is the changelog: * Sat Nov 02 2013 Michele Baldessari mich...@redhat.com - 1.6-2 - Fixed two hardcoded dirs in install section (Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com) - Added texlive-epstopdf-bin in Requires as socketstatistic requires it - Added a patch to correct some help messages I've now git-ified the patch applying (a bit like in xorg-x11-server) so rpmlint now needlessly warns about: captcp.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-The-option-is-called-statistic-not-statistics.patch Hope that is alright. thanks again and regards, Michele -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-riddle-1.5.9-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Michele Baldessari from comment #2)
Hi Antonio,
thanks for letting me know. I've uploaded fixed spec and srpm:
Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec
SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp-1.6-2.fc20.src.rpm
I increased the release tag, hope that is okay. Here is the changelog:
* Sat Nov 02 2013 Michele Baldessari mich...@redhat.com - 1.6-2
- Fixed two hardcoded dirs in install section (Antonio Trande
anto.tra...@gmail.com)
You don't need to indicate my Name/Surname/Mail. Please, don't do that.
Hardcoded directory names must be avoided in the whole file.
- Added texlive-epstopdf-bin in Requires as socketstatistic requires it
- Added a patch to correct some help messages
I've now git-ified the patch applying (a bit like in xorg-x11-server) so
rpmlint now needlessly warns about:
captcp.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
0001-The-option-is-called-statistic-not-statistics.patch
Probably, it means that you have not applied the patch included in your source
rpm. You can simply use the %patch command in the %setup section.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25prep_section:_.25patch_commands
and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
Remove the line 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in the %install section.
Why have you erased the '%{buildroot}/{_bindir}/captcp' file ?
Leave a comment to explain your reasons. ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on 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 #30 from Germán Racca gra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #29)
My logic is: Gedit requires Python 3 (because 'rpm -q --requires gedit'
says 'python(abi) = 3.3'), and this plugin requires Gedit.
This is okay, because _currently_ it works. Currently, package gedit
contains an explicit dependency on Python 3. But generally, you cannot
guarantee that such a dependency won't move to a different package (and
actually, moved dependencies have lead to run-time breakage before).
gedit-template directly needs Python 3, so that should be added as a package
dependency.
Thanks for sharing your experience on packaging!
Byte compiled files are present in my system:
That looks as if they have been bytecompiled for Python 2. The Python 3
based __pycache__ dir is missing.
You are right. I looked at the content of the package gedit-plugins, and it has
the __pycache__ directory.
Why is that?
Try adding to the spec:
%global __python %{__python3}
That did the trick. It created the __pycache__ dir with the corresponding files
inside it:
$ rpmls RPMS/x86_64/gedit-template-0.0.2-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/__pycache__
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/__pycache__/template.cpython-33.pyc
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/__pycache__/template.cpython-33.pyo
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.plugin
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/template.py
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/LICENSE
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gedit-template-0.0.2/README
Please find updated files here:
Spec URL: http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/gedit-template.spec
SRPM URL:
http://skytux.fedorapeople.org/packages/gedit-template-0.0.2-2.fc19.src.rpm
Koji build from scratch for F19:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6130529
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Also, some slashes are redundant:
%{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/captcp is wrong.
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/captcp is fine.
%{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8/captcp.8 is wrong.
%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8/captcp.8 is fine.
And so on.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020404] Review Request: perl-Archive-Peek - Peek into archives without extracting them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020404 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Archive-Peek-0.35-2.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 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
--- Comment #5 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3)
(In reply to Michele Baldessari from comment #2)
Hi Antonio,
thanks for letting me know. I've uploaded fixed spec and srpm:
Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec
SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp-1.6-2.fc20.src.rpm
I increased the release tag, hope that is okay. Here is the changelog:
* Sat Nov 02 2013 Michele Baldessari mich...@redhat.com - 1.6-2
- Fixed two hardcoded dirs in install section (Antonio Trande
anto.tra...@gmail.com)
You don't need to indicate my Name/Surname/Mail. Please, don't do that.
Hardcoded directory names must be avoided in the whole file.
Ok. I removed your name. The comment was imprecise, I had removed them
from everywhere.
- Added texlive-epstopdf-bin in Requires as socketstatistic requires it
- Added a patch to correct some help messages
I've now git-ified the patch applying (a bit like in xorg-x11-server) so
rpmlint now needlessly warns about:
captcp.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
0001-The-option-is-called-statistic-not-statistics.patch
Probably, it means that you have not applied the patch included in your
source rpm. You can simply use the %patch command in the %setup section.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25prep_section:_.
25patch_commands and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
It's rpmlint that is unfortunately not smart enough, the patch has been
applied. Patch has been sent upstream but has not been applied there yet.
I tend to avoid %patch because 'git am' fits nicely in my workflow and
brings the same result (like the x11 folks do)
I've added a comment about the patch.
Remove the line 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in the %install section.
Ok, done.
Why have you erased the '%{buildroot}/{_bindir}/captcp' file ?
Leave a comment to explain your reasons. ;)
Ok, I've added a comment explaining this in the spec file directly.
Thanks for all your comments. Very appreciated.
regards,
Michele
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020404] Review Request: perl-Archive-Peek - Peek into archives without extracting them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020404 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Archive-Peek-0.35-2.fc ||21 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-11-02 17:34:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015326] Review Request: rubygem-hipchat - Ruby library to interact with HipChat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- No prob :) Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-hipchat Short Description: Ruby library to interact with HipChat 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 1026042] New: Review Request: polly - Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns of multiple accounts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042 Bug ID: 1026042 Summary: Review Request: polly - Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns of multiple accounts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mich...@acksyn.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/polly/polly.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/polly/polly-0.93.11-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Polly is a Linux Twitter client designed for managing multiple columns of multiple accounts, purposefully keeping them separated instead of merged. Fedora Account System Username: mbaldessari Note: There was a previous review request where the original reporter lost interest - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824218 As suggested there in c#17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026042] Review Request: polly - Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns of multiple accounts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042 Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.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 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.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 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989847] Review Request: mingw-plibc - MinGW package for plibc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847
František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz
--- Comment #4 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Several comments to the packaging:
* missing build dependency on automake - mock complains Can't exec aclocal:
No such file or directory
* it would be better to replace the mv COPYING ../ command in %install by:
- something like cp -p plibc/COPYING . in %prep
- or using plibc/COPYING in %doc directly?
* it seems sourceforge has some problems with the snapshot URL, maybe there
could be added comment how to obtain the given version? Something like:
# svn checkout -r 147 svn://svn.code.sf.net/p/plibc/code/trunk
plibc-code-147-trunk
* you can use %{summary} in the subpackages (just a tip, it is not needed :-))
* if I'm not mistaken, the release version could be simplified to
1.20130812svn%{?dist}, but there is no technical problem with the current
scheme 1.0.20130812svn%{?dist}
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975318] Review Request: libodb-sqlite - SQLite ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.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 975318] Review Request: libodb-sqlite - SQLite ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026042] Review Request: polly - Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns of multiple accounts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
As a quickstart, run fedora-review -b 1026042 and examine its various
results.
Summary:Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns
of multiple accounts
Linux, eh? ;-)
desktop-file-install \
…
desktop-file-validate
Note that desktop-file-install also validates the file, so you only need to run
either one, not both.
%{_datadir}/icons/*/*/*/*
If the package doesn't Requires: hicolor-icon-theme, there are multiple
unowned directories in the /usr/share/icons/ tree.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
%{_datadir}/%{name}/iconsets
Here the directory %{_datadir}/%{name} is not included.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026042] Review Request: polly - Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns of multiple accounts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042
--- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org ---
Holy Batman! That was fast ;)
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1)
As a quickstart, run fedora-review -b 1026042 and examine its various
results.
Ha! Good to know, I was a bit concerned that it did other admin stuff as well.
Summary:Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns
of multiple accounts
Linux, eh? ;-)
Ok ok, I removed it ;)
desktop-file-install \
…
desktop-file-validate
Note that desktop-file-install also validates the file, so you only need to
run either one, not both.
Ack. Removed.
%{_datadir}/icons/*/*/*/*
If the package doesn't Requires: hicolor-icon-theme, there are multiple
unowned directories in the /usr/share/icons/ tree.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
Ah wasn't aware of this. Fixed.
%{_datadir}/%{name}/iconsets
Here the directory %{_datadir}/%{name} is not included.
Fixed as well.
Hohum fedora-review barfs a bit due to the spaces+() in the tarname and the
directory.
I'll look into that and then upload a fresh package.
Thanks for the feedback and regards,
Michele
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 --- Comment #6 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org --- So I went through an iteration of fedora-review -b 1025977 and fixed a couple of things. New files: Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp-1.6-3.fc20.src.rpm I am not attaching the output of the review as I'm assuming that has to be done by someone else. If that is not the case, just let me know and I'll attach it. regards, Michele -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026042] Review Request: polly - Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns of multiple accounts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042 Conscious User consciousu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||consciousu...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Conscious User consciousu...@gmail.com --- Polly developer here. Thank you very much for your effort! I don't know anything about Fedora packaging, but if any of the issues found is something better solved upstream, please let me know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025972] Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Have you seen bug 990423? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016370] Review Request: rubygem-capillary - Generate a JSON payload from Git log output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016370 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-capillary-1.0.3-3.f ||c19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-11-03 00:31:47 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-capillary-1.0.3-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975313] Review Request: libodb-boost - Boost ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.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 975315] Review Request: libodb-mysql - MySQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.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 975316] Review Request: libodb-qt - Qt ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.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 1018492] Review Request: vcsh - Version Control System for $HOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||vcsh-1.20130909-3.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-11-03 00:33:30 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vcsh-1.20130909-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975317] Review Request: libodb-pgsql - PostgreSQL ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.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 975318] Review Request: libodb-sqlite - SQLite ODB runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.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 1018492] Review Request: vcsh - Version Control System for $HOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|vcsh-1.20130909-3.fc19 |vcsh-1.20130909-3.fc18 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vcsh-1.20130909-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
