[Bug 1026051] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026051 Bug ID: 1026051 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@affix.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/Affix/RPMs/blob/master/SPECS/rubygem-github-markdown.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Affix/RPMs/blob/master/SRPMS/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true Description: Just finished packaging a rubygem (github-markdown-0.6.1) GitHub uses what we're calling GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM) for messages, issues, and comments. It differs from standard Markdown (SM) in a few significant ways and adds some additional functionality. Fedora Account System Username: affix -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026052] New: Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to process github markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052 Bug ID: 1026052 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to process github markdown Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@affix.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/Affix/RPMs/blob/master/SPECS/rubygem-github-markdown.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Affix/RPMs/blob/master/SRPMS/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true Description: Just finished packaging a rubygem (github-markdown-0.6.1) GitHub uses what we're calling GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM) for messages, issues, and comments. It differs from standard Markdown (SM) in a few significant ways and adds some additional functionality. Fedora Account System Username: affix -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026052] Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to process github markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052 --- Comment #1 from Keiran Smith fed...@affix.me --- *** Bug 1026051 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 1026051] Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026051 Keiran Smith fed...@affix.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-11-03 01:09:53 --- Comment #1 from Keiran Smith fed...@affix.me --- Sorry I made a mistake here and have corrected it. Closing bug *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1026052 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026052] Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to process github markdown
doc_size, struct sd_markdown *md); ^ gh-markdown.c:125:2: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'rb_enc_str_new' differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] rb_text = geefem_str_new(output_buf-data, output_buf-size); ^ In file included from gh-markdown.c:20:0: /usr/include/ruby/encoding.h:100:7: note: expected 'const char *' but argument is of type 'uint8_t *' VALUE rb_enc_str_new(const char*, long, rb_encoding*); ^ gcc -I. -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I. -fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -fvisibility=hidden -m64 -o houdini_html_e.o -c houdini_html_e.c gcc -I. -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I. -fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -fvisibility=hidden -m64 -o markdown.o -c markdown.c gcc -I. -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I. -fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -fvisibility=hidden -m64 -o autolink.o -c autolink.c gcc -I. -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/ruby/backward -I/usr/include -I. -fPIC -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -fvisibility=hidden -m64 -o buffer.o -c buffer.c rm -f markdown.so gcc -shared -o markdown.so html.o houdini_href_e.o plaintext.o stack.o gh-markdown.o houdini_html_e.o markdown.o autolink.o buffer.o -L. -L/usr/lib64 -L. -Wl,-z,relro -fstack-protector -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic -m64 -lruby -lpthread -lrt -ldl -lcrypt -lm -lc make DESTDIR= install /usr/bin/mkdir -p ./.gem.20131103-11062-17k65b/github exit .RUBYARCHDIR.time /usr/bin/install -c -m 0755 markdown.so ./.gem.20131103-11062-17k65b/github Successfully installed github-markdown-0.6.1 Parsing documentation for github-markdown-0.6.1 Installing ri documentation for github-markdown-0.6.1 Installing darkfish documentation for github-markdown-0.6.1 Done installing documentation for github-markdown after 0 seconds 1 gem installed + pushd ./usr/share/gems/gems/github-markdown-0.6.1 ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1/usr/share/gems/gems/github-markdown-0.6.1 ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + popd ~/build/BUILD/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1 + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.3lhlqD + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + '[' /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64 ++ dirname /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64 + mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT + mkdir /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64 + cd rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1 + mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/gems + cp -a ./usr/share /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/ + chmod 0644 /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/gems/cache/github-markdown-0.6.1.gem + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id -m --run-dwz --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 1000 --dwz-max-die-limit 11000 /builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1 extracting debug info from /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/github-markdown-0.6.1/ext/markdown/markdown.so extracting debug info from /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/github-markdown-0.6.1/lib/github/markdown.so *** WARNING: identical binaries are copied, not linked: /usr/share/gems/gems/github-markdown-0.6.1/lib/github/markdown.so and /usr/share/gems/gems/github-markdown-0.6.1/ext/markdown/markdown.so /usr/lib/rpm/sepdebugcrcfix: Updated 2 CRC32s, 0 CRC32s did match. 237 blocks + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-compress + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1 + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-python-hardlink + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars Processing files: rubygem-github-markdown-0.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64 Provides: markdown.so()(64bit) rubygem(github-markdown) = 0.6.1 rubygem-github-markdown = 0.6.1-1.fc19 rubygem-github-markdown(x86-64) = 0.6.1-1.fc19 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 Requires: /usr/bin/env libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so
[Bug 1020468] Review Request: ucpp - Embeddable, quick, light and fully compliant ISO C99 preprocessor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020468 --- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net --- Fixed all issues: Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ucpp/ucpp.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ucpp/ucpp-1.3.4-2.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 1025977] Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977 --- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michele Baldessari from comment #6) 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. It is not the case; when a sponsor will decide to sponsor you (I can't do that), then he/she will make an official review against a rawhide building. Now, you can just convince a sponsor by following the dedicated guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group). ;) However, you can already test your package in other builds like epel5/6 and especially in rawhide. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds?rd=Extras/MockTricks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4) Jamie, where are you? Sorry, have been so busy over the last few weeks, but I have some time over the next week. I'll work on this soon :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #6 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/grunt/nodejs-grunt.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/grunt/SRPMS/nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.fc19.src.rpm * Sun Nov 03 2013 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 0.4.1-2 - improve %%summary - add ExclusiveArch logic -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org 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 1015261] Review Request: rubygem-just_paginate - Paginating collections of things for the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015261
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=6132239
$ rpmlint -i -v *rubygem-just_paginate.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-just_paginate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webpage
- web page, web-page, pageboy
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-just_paginate.noarch: I: checking-url
https://gitorious.org/gitorious/just_paginate (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-just_paginate.src: I: checking
rubygem-just_paginate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webpage -
web page, web-page, pageboy
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-just_paginate.src: I: checking-url
https://gitorious.org/gitorious/just_paginate (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-just_paginate.src: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/just_paginate-0.2.2.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-just_paginate-doc.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-just_paginate-doc.noarch: I: checking-url
https://gitorious.org/gitorious/just_paginate (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-just_paginate.spec: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/just_paginate-0.2.2.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
No more than an ignorable spelling error.
-
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.
The license text is included in README.md.
[+] 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 *
3e13a40f6cba3fd419f238ae462c3e3c9bdd9edbc4bb8cdb8911e514d469dd22
just_paginate-0.2.2.gem
3e13a40f6cba3fd419f238ae462c3e3c9bdd9edbc4bb8cdb8911e514d469dd22
just_paginate-0.2.2.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
[Bug 1025928] Review Request: rubygem-ice_nine - Deep Freeze Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025928
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-ice_nine.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-ice_nine.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/dkubb/ice_nine
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-ice_nine.src: I: checking
rubygem-ice_nine.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/dkubb/ice_nine
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-ice_nine.src: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/ice_nine-0.10.0.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-ice_nine-doc.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-ice_nine-doc.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/dkubb/ice_nine
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-ice_nine.spec: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/ice_nine-0.10.0.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 *
108f7538b32819623db949583895a962f5934dcfd183e7fff8b7e6d70db04c42
ice_nine-0.10.0.gem
108f7538b32819623db949583895a962f5934dcfd183e7fff8b7e6d70db04c42
ice_nine-0.10.0.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 permissable content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc
[Bug 1025930] Review Request: rubygem-equalizer - Module to define equality, equivalence and inspection methods
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025930
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-equalizer.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-equalizer.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/dkubb/equalizer
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-equalizer.src: I: checking
rubygem-equalizer.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/dkubb/equalizer
(timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-equalizer.src: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/equalizer-0.0.7.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-equalizer-doc.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-equalizer-doc.noarch: I: checking-url
https://github.com/dkubb/equalizer (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-equalizer-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gems/gems/equalizer-0.0.7/TODO
rubygem-equalizer.spec: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/equalizer-0.0.7.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Please remove the empty TODO list, but it is a post-review task, because it
isn't that critical.
-
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 *
84a56c7fb14554605c2e48830e7dd683d77ca63c72a7d8c167fdf3d019375f20
equalizer-0.0.7.gem
84a56c7fb14554605c2e48830e7dd683d77ca63c72a7d8c167fdf3d019375f20
equalizer-0.0.7.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.
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #23 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Ping, Paul! How're things going? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: rubygem-redis-namespace - Namespaces Redis commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025984
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-redis-namespace.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-redis-namespace.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Namespaces -
Name spaces, Name-spaces, Names paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-redis-namespace.noarch: I: checking-url
http://github.com/resque/redis-namespace (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-redis-namespace.src: I: checking
rubygem-redis-namespace.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Namespaces -
Name spaces, Name-spaces, Names paces
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
rubygem-redis-namespace.src: I: checking-url
http://github.com/resque/redis-namespace (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-redis-namespace.src: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/redis-namespace-1.3.1.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-redis-namespace-doc.noarch: I: checking
rubygem-redis-namespace-doc.noarch: I: checking-url
http://github.com/resque/redis-namespace (timeout 10 seconds)
rubygem-redis-namespace.spec: I: checking-url
https://rubygems.org/gems/redis-namespace-1.3.1.gem (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
The spelling error can be ignored.
-
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 *
8547f2a2466359816daf472a80c2b58c844b01bc7abf554dbc25da043e31cad0
redis-namespace-1.3.1.gem
8547f2a2466359816daf472a80c2b58c844b01bc7abf554dbc25da043e31cad0
redis-namespace-1.3.1.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
[Bug 1025972] Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972 Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-11-03 06:52:47 --- Comment #4 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt --- No. Missed it when I skimmed over the pending list of review request tickets. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 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 1025972] Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972 --- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) Have you seen bug 990423? Unfortunately, your ticket doesn't appear in http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html because you have too many package submitted, and there appear are only the oldest ones. This was the reason probably that Jose hadn't noticed it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1009750] Review Request: python-falcon - High-performance cloud API framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009750 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-11-03 08:54:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957347] Review Request: storeBackup - A very space efficient disk-to-disk backup suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957347 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Ready -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- 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 1026095] New: Review Request: doclifter - Translates documents written in troff macros to DocBook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026095 Bug ID: 1026095 Summary: Review Request: doclifter - Translates documents written in troff macros to DocBook Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/doclifter.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/doclifter-2.13-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The doclifter program translates documents written in troff macros to DocBook. Lifting documents from presentation level to semantic level is hard, and a really good job requires human polishing. This tool aims to do everything that can be mechanized, and to preserve any troff-level information that might have structural implications in XML comments. This tool does the hard parts. TBL tables are translated into DocBook table markup, PIC into SVG, and EQN into MathML (relying on pic2svg and GNU eqn for the last two). Fedora Account System Username: mariobl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026095] Review Request: doclifter - Translates documents written in troff macros to DocBook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026095 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||doclifter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895541] Review Request: ptbl - Periodic Table
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895541 --- Comment #47 from RudraB rudra.baner...@aol.co.uk --- Hi Antonio, Sorry for the delayed reply. Since this is my first package, my sponsor asked me to have mastered the procedure, which was tricky for me. so, I will probably remain upstream, and if some one find this interesting, is welcome to package it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895541] Review Request: ptbl - Periodic Table
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895541 --- Comment #48 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to RudraB from comment #47) Hi Antonio, Sorry for the delayed reply. Since this is my first package, my sponsor asked me to have mastered the procedure, which was tricky for me. so, I will probably remain upstream, and if some one find this interesting, is welcome to package it. If you're not interested anymore, please close this review request, so someone else can candidate himself to package this software. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895541] Review Request: ptbl - Periodic Table
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895541 RudraB rudra.baner...@aol.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||limburg...@gmail.com Component|Package Review |zzuf Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-11-03 12:18:48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018057] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||golang-googlecode-goprotobu ||f-0-0.7.hg61664b8425f3.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2013-10-16 06:58:49 |2013-11-03 12:56:29 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.7.hg61664b8425f3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018540] Review Request: golang-github-goraft-raft - A Go implementation of the Raft distributed consensus protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018540 Bug 1018540 depends on bug 1018057, which changed state. Bug 1018057 Summary: Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 --- Comment #13 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #12) ping. the package works, and it would make sense to release (approve) it as is. Of course, some more work would be needed to make it perfect. But, it also needs quite a lot more time and energy, which I do not have right now... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018533] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd socket activation, journal and D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018533 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|golang-github-coreos-go-sys |golang-github-coreos-go-sys |temd-0-0.3.git68bc612.fc19 |temd-0-0.3.git68bc612.el6 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-coreos-go-systemd-0-0.3.git68bc612.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018542] Review Request: go-bindata - A small utility which generates Go code from any file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018542 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|go-bindata-0-0.4.git79847ab |go-bindata-0-0.4.git79847ab |.fc19 |.el6 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- go-bindata-0-0.4.git79847ab.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 878556] Review Request: rubygem-simplecov - Code coverage analysis tool for Ruby 1.9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878556 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jan.kle...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-simplecov Short Description: Code coverage analysis tool for Ruby 1.9 Owners: hpejakle Branches: el5 el6 InitialCC: tdawson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Flags||needinfo?(conscioususer@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #4 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org --- Hi Marcelo, actually I noticed in the latest upstream tgz you have added a COPYRIGHT file that states the following: Files: share/icons/* Copyright: 2011, Joern Konopka 2011, Georgi Karavasilev License: CC-BY-NC-SA-3 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You should have received a copy of the license along with this work. If not, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. $ find share/icons/ -type f |wc -l 25 If CC has the NC clause it won't be fit for Fedora (and neither Debian FWIW) as it makes the whole distribution/download quite a dodgy ground (even covering CD download bandwidth costs with advertising could be violating the license in certain jurisdictions). As we're really just talking about a single icon (in different sizes or themes), can you either: A) Ask the upstream authors of the icons to relicense the icons to a more friendly license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA for example): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses_2 B) Get a completely different icon for the program that is licensed under one of the above licenses. I theoretically could prepare a source tarball without the problematic icons (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code), but it makes zero sense for something that can be trivially fixed by upstream and you might want to fix it anyway if you are interested in polly being adopted by most distros ;) Thanks, 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 996489] Review Request: rubygem-tins - Useful tools library in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996489 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||jan.kle...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@gmail.com --- Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-tins Short Description: Useful tools library in Ruby Owners: hpejakle Branches: el6 el5 InitialCC: axilleas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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 Flags|needinfo?(conscioususer@gma | |il.com) | --- Comment #5 from Conscious User consciousu...@gmail.com --- I am contacting the icon authors and will post here as I make progress. They will probably agree to relicense. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015261] Review Request: rubygem-just_paginate - Paginating collections of things for the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015261 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thank you very much for the package review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-just_paginate Short Description: Paginating collections of things for the web 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 1025928] Review Request: rubygem-ice_nine - Deep Freeze Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025928 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-ice_nine Short Description: Deep Freeze Ruby Objects Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f19 f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025930] Review Request: rubygem-equalizer - Module to define equality, equivalence and inspection methods
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025930 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-equalizer Short Description: Module to define equality, equivalence and inspection methods Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f19 f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026052] Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to process github markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
I'll need this for rubygem-github-markup, so I can take this review.
Most importantly: Can you please add the test suite in %check?
Please use HTTPS for the URL and Source0.
Do you need to have the version number comparison (= 1.3.6) for rubygems and
rubygems-devel? If not, I recommend leaving it out.
Does this package need rubygem(rubyforge) and rubygem(rake)? I'm thinking these
can be removed from the Requires/BuildRequires.
Is this chmod line necessary?
chmod 0644 %{buildroot}%{gemdir}/cache/*gem
Are you planning on building for EL5? If not, please remove the %defattr(-,
root, root, -) lines under %files.
You're using the old-style EL6 macros, like gemdir or geminstdir. Can you
switch this to use the newer styles available in F19? The gem2rpm tool that's
available in Fedora 19 should help you. If you're still interested in packaging
this for EL6, you can just use backwards-compatible macros.
My suggestion would be to re-run gem2rpm on Fedora 19 for this gem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1025984] Review Request: rubygem-redis-namespace - Namespaces Redis commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025984 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thank you very much for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-redis-namespace Short Description: Namespaces Redis commands Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f19 f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-bourne-1.5.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-bourne-1.5.0-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026095] Review Request: doclifter - Translates documents written in troff macros to DocBook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026095 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Love esr's tools. Taken. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026095] Review Request: doclifter - Translates documents written in troff macros to DocBook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026095
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Requires
doclifter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/env
/usr/bin/python
Well, I think you should patch env path to %{__python2}.
Others are fine.
Once fixed I will approve.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972431] Review Request: airtsp - C++ Simulated Airline Travel Solution Provider Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972431 --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I think all issues are fixed, time to approve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Depends On||1022349 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022349 [Bug 1022349] Allow opendmarc to bind to a port -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026139] Review Request: appstream - Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream Xapian database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026139 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1026118 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026118 [Bug 1026118] enable AppStream in apper -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026139] New: Review Request: appstream - Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream Xapian database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026139 Bug ID: 1026139 Summary: Review Request: appstream - Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream Xapian database Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/appstream/appstream.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/appstream/appstream-0.4.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: AppStream-Core makes it easy to access application information from the AppStream database over a nice GObject-based interface. It uses a PackageKit plugin to automatically (re)generate the AppStream Xapian database of applications. Fedora Account System Username: rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026139] Review Request: appstream - Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream Xapian database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026139 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||appstream -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 #10 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Easiest proof would be to do a rawhide koji scratch build. While we're at it, why isn't lpf in f20 yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026052] Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to process github markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052
Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org ---
And another important thing:
* Please check how ext/ directory should be treated.
Arch dependent .so file must not be under /usr/share , so this file
must be moved somewhere (usually %{gem_extdir_mri}/lib )
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783016] Review Request: pilas - A simple to use video game framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783016 --- Comment #30 from Andres Pascasio morphe...@fedoraproject.org --- New Spec URL: http://morpheusv.fedorapeople.org/pilas/0.80-6/pilas.spec SRPM URL: http://morpheusv.fedorapeople.org/pilas/0.80-6/pilas-0.80-6.fc18.src.rpm These are the outputs: rpmlint SPECS/pilas.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint SRPMS/pilas-0.80-6.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint RPMS/noarch/pilas-0.80-6.fc18.noarch.rpm pilas.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pilas 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. After koji build --scratch rawhide pilas-0.80-6.fc18.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6134835 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I'm not sure if it's the problem of mirrors, but mock can't find blosc now with Error: No Package found for blosc-devel although it's already imported. I will re run the review later, please wait. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026139] Review Request: appstream - Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream Xapian database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026139 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tchollingswo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015701] Review Request: amiri-fonts - Arabic font form amirifont.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015701 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #28 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- I see that you have started reviewing other new packages. Please do 2 more full reviews and show that you understand packaging and can find issues in packages and can provide fixes to them. I am taking this for official review but will do so once I see your reviews done on other packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 #11 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I've postponed all lpf pushes: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #10) Welcome onboard! Easiest proof would be to do a rawhide koji scratch build. Indeed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/watchlogs?taskID=6134863 While we're at it, why isn't lpf in f20 yet? I' ve postponed all lpf pushes: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972431] Review Request: airtsp - C++ Simulated Airline Travel Solution Provider Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972431 --- Comment #15 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #14) I think all issues are fixed, time to approve. There still are arch/multilib-related issues. Try building the srpm for i386 and x86_64, unpackage the resulting binary rpms into separate directories and compare them. Here is one example (There are several more): diff -Naur i386/usr/share/airtsp/CMake/airtsp-config.cmake x86_64/usr/share/airtsp/CMake/airtsp-config.cmake --- i386/usr/share/airtsp/CMake/airtsp-config.cmake 2013-11-04 06:16:02.0 +0100 +++ x86_64/usr/share/airtsp/CMake/airtsp-config.cmake 2013-11-04 06:01:34.0 +0100 @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ set (AIRTSP_VERSION 1.01.1) set (AIRTSP_BINARY_DIRS /usr/bin) set (AIRTSP_INCLUDE_DIRS /usr/include) -set (AIRTSP_LIBRARY_DIRS /usr/lib) +set (AIRTSP_LIBRARY_DIRS /usr/lib64) # Library dependencies for AirTSP (contains definitions for the AirTSP # IMPORTED targets) Additionally, the doc-package is having doxygen timestamping issues, which causes the doc package to be built non-deterministically: # diff -Naur i386/usr/share/doc/airtsp-doc/html/AirlineScheduleTestSuite_8cpp.html x86_64/usr/share/doc/airtsp-doc/html/AirlineScheduleTestSuite_8cpp.html --- i386/usr/share/doc/airtsp-doc/html/AirlineScheduleTestSuite_8cpp.html 2013-11-04 06:16:05.0 +0100 +++ x86_64/usr/share/doc/airtsp-doc/html/AirlineScheduleTestSuite_8cpp.html 2013-11-04 06:01:36.0 +0100 @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ /div!-- contents -- /div!-- doc-content -- - li class=footerGenerated on Mon Nov 4 2013 06:16:05 for AirTSP by + li class=footerGenerated on Mon Nov 4 2013 06:01:36 for AirTSP by a href=http://www.doxygen.org/index.html; img class=footer src=doxygen.png alt=doxygen//a 1.8.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026139] Review Request: appstream - Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream Xapian database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026139
--- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
Looks good overall, just a couple directory issues, at least one of which isn't
your issue at all...
--
MUST:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
There are three directories that aren't owned by this package or any of its
dependencies:
%{_datadir}/vala/vapi
This probably should be in a vala-appstream subpackage that Requires vala:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-February/msg00022.html
/usr/lib64/packagekit-plugins
This is actually a bug in PackageKit. It ships several files in that directory
itself, but nobody owns it.
/usr/share/gir-1.0
% repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/gir-1.0 | wc -l
46
All -devel packages.
I'm pretty sure all these packages should all just be requiring
gobject-instrospection-devel?
SHOULD:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Checking: appstream-0.4.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
appstream-devel-0.4.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
appstream-0.4.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
appstream.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C AppStream
This make sense in this case.
appstream-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
rpmlint really should whitelist -devel subpackages...
appstream.src:32: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line
32)
In the commented-out Requires line.
appstream.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libappstream.so.0.4.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
CMake overlinking as per usual.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
