[Bug 1032108] Review Request: Yarock - A Lightweight and Beautiful Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032108 --- Comment #35 from James Abtahi jamescateg...@gmail.com --- If all the reviewers are satisfied with this package, please APPROVE it or otherwise let me know of any suggestions. -- 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 1032108] Review Request: Yarock - A Lightweight and Beautiful Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032108 --- Comment #36 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- In actual review process has not started yet, no reviewer is assigned. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Review_Process for details. -- 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 1032670] Review Request: docker-registry - Registry server for Docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032670 --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Hi Vincent, Thanks! IMHO we should leave opening the firewall to the user, entirely. We don't do this for HTTPD, we shouldn't do this here too. I'll add a wiki page that describes how to use the registry later. I've added the license file and readme files to the package as request. Forgot about that :) Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/docker-registry/2/docker-registry.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/docker-registry/2/docker-registry-0.6.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6231055 -- 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 1032108] Review Request: Yarock - A Lightweight and Beautiful Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032108 --- Comment #37 from James Abtahi jamescateg...@gmail.com --- In actual review process has not started yet, no reviewer is assigned. Shouldn't the sponsor be also the reviewer? Kevin Fenzi sponsored me (for co-maintaining another package) into the fedora packager git commit group: I've sponsored james to help co-maintain a infrastructure package. Removing the NEEDSPONSOR here. Is he also responsible for reviewing this package too? I'll have to talk to him. -- 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 1035129] Review Request: rubygem-ensure_valid_encoding - Replace bad bytes in given encoding with replacement strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035129 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 #1 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Hi Mamoru, I can take this 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 1032186] Review Request: rubygem-rack-openid - Provides a more HTTPish API around the ruby-openid library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032186
--- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Thanks for taking the review.
I just realized that 1.4.1-1 contains a bad copy-and-paste from another gem.
This text:
# Until upstream ships the full text of the ASL 2.0 in a released gem, we
will
# ship the version from Git master.
install -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
needs to use %{SOURCE3} instead of %{SOURCE1}, and the comment needs to say
MIT, rather than ASL 2.0. Whoops! I can fix this after your full 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 996209] Review Request: knotter - A free and open source customizable interlace designer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996209 Benedikt Schäfer ib54...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ib54003@fedorapro | |ject.org) | --- Comment #14 from Benedikt Schäfer ib54...@fedoraproject.org --- Hi, sorry i was busy. Yes I am, i hope i can finish it today :) -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- * Wed Nov 27 2013 - Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com - 0.0.1.20131123gitdb80fc-4 - Added missing vim directories. - Fixed BuildRoot. - Use fdupes only on Fedora. - Use name tag in Requires. -- 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 1032108] Review Request: Yarock - A Lightweight and Beautiful Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032108 --- Comment #38 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Shouldn't the sponsor be also the reviewer? It's somewhat a grey area, since you've been sponsored prior to your first package review request already (for becoming a co-maintainer). The following page, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer only says: | The Reviewer can be any Fedora account holder, who is a member of | the packager group. There is one exception: If it is the first package | of a Contributor, the Reviewer must be in the Sponsor group and be | willing to sponsor that Contributor. That refers to review requests with the NEEDSPONSOR flag, where a sponsor is needed for real progress. But this is not your first package, only your first package review request. Any reviewer could do the review, since you are sponsored already. For the initial guidance, it would be fair if Kevin did the first review, however. -- 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 1035129] Review Request: rubygem-ensure_valid_encoding - Replace bad bytes in given encoding with replacement strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035129
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Two suggestions, no blocking issues. Package APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Suggestions:
===
- I recommend removing the trailing whitespace in the %description text prior
to importing in Git. Not a blocker.
- The %description text looks a bit weird to me because it's using some
markdown formatting syntax. For example, _or_ vs or. If it were up to me,
I'd remove the markdown formatting and just use plain text. Not a blocker.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to
[Bug 1034017] Review Request: perl-Test-Name-FromLine - Auto fill test names from caller line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034017 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-11-27 04:57:02 --- Comment #6 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org --- Thanks for the Git process, Jon! Package built in Rawhide, closing. -- 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 1033481] Review Request: perl-Test-Time - Overrides the time() and sleep() core functions for testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033481 Bug 1033481 depends on bug 1034017, which changed state. Bug 1034017 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Name-FromLine - Auto fill test names from caller line https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034017 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1024043] Review Request: python-arrow - Better dates and times for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024043 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 1024043] Review Request: python-arrow - Better dates and times for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024043 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-arrow-0.4.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-arrow-0.4.2-1.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 1024043] Review Request: python-arrow - Better dates and times for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024043 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-arrow-0.4.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-arrow-0.4.2-1.fc19 -- 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 225637] Merge Review: castor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225637 --- Comment #10 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk --- Thanks for the feedback. I have addressed all your comments in the latest rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=481142 SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/castor/1.3.2/11.fc21/noarch/castor-javadoc-1.3.2-11.fc21.noarch.rpm SPEC FILE: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/castor.git/tree/castor.spec -- 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 736717] Review Request: lcmaps - Grid (X.509) and VOMS credentials to local account mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lcmaps-1.6.1-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcmaps-1.6.1-7.el6 -- 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 --- Comment #2 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com --- Hi Frantisek, Thank you for your comments. Yes it intends to be provided on EPEL5 too. Concerning the dependency to python-dmlite, It was expected to have this package inside Fedora/EPEL, but it seems that the review has been delayed. I will take care of it. -- 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 736717] Review Request: lcmaps - Grid (X.509) and VOMS credentials to local account mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lcmaps-1.6.1-7.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcmaps-1.6.1-7.el5 -- 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 1034523] Review Request: sqlcli - a tool for running sql queries from the command line using sqlalchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523 Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kcham...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1034523] Review Request: sqlcli - a tool for running sql queries from the command line using sqlalchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523 Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1034523] Review Request: sqlcli - a tool for running sql queries from the command line using sqlalchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523 --- Comment #5 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com --- Koji scratch build successful: $ koji build --scratch rawhide sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm Uploading srpm: sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm [] 100% 00:00:01 17.46 KiB 11.24 KiB/sec Created task: 6232022 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6232022 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 6232022 build (rawhide, sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm): open (arm04-builder13.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6232023 buildArch (sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6232023 buildArch (sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 6232022 build (rawhide, sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm): open (arm04-builder13.arm.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 6232022 build (rawhide, sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm) completed successfully -- 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 1018384] Review Request: tinyca2 - TinyCA graphical openssl based CA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018384 --- Comment #20 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- oops. totally missed the ball on this. rpms coming right up -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961
--- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Above all, please, when you change your src package then post the new links to
.spec/src.rpm. Reviewer needs them for using 'fedora-review' tool (in fact,
note my previous comment .spec file and src rpm are not contiguous.).
- Why BuildRequires tag is so much high in the file ?
- I do still not see any comment for the patches. ;)
- %{checkout} goes in the Release tag.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
- Your package cannot be built in EPEL yet. I advice you to check it in koji
when it's ready ... and to post the links. :)
--
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 1034523] Review Request: sqlcli - a tool for running sql queries from the command line using sqlalchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #6 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com ---
Couple more comments, I forgot to note these:
(1) s/GPLv3/GPLv3+
(2) LICENSE file not included
$ tree ../1034523-sqlcli/ | grep -i LICENSE
├── licensecheck.txt
(3) Also, rpmlint throws this to me:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint sqlcli
sqlcli.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A SQL query utility.
sqlcli.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
sqlcli.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sqlcli/main.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Maybe, this could be useful:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries
(4) Posting the review tool results here for the record, manual review
upcoming:
$ fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1034523
[. . .]
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/1034523-sqlcli/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
[Bug 1032108] Review Request: Yarock - A Lightweight and Beautiful Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032108 --- Comment #39 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- I'd be happy to review this, but not sure when I will get time to do so. :( So, if anyone else would like to, please feel free... if not, I will try and do so as time permits. -- 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 1024043] Review Request: python-arrow - Better dates and times for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024043 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-arrow-0.4.2-1.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. 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 518317] Review Request: perdition - Mail Retrieval Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518317 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #39 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Christopher thank you very much for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perdition Short Description: Mail Retrieval Proxy Owners: hubbitus Branches: F-18 F-19 F-20 InitialCC: -- 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 1032670] Review Request: docker-registry - Registry server for Docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032670 --- Comment #7 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com --- should we add conditionals for rhel right away, or better after 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 564537] Review Request: grc - simple python logfile colouriser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564537 --- Comment #12 from Carl van Tonder c...@supervacuo.com --- Terje, thanks for asking. I think I should back away from this package for the following reasons: * other packages like ccze are available in the repos and I can't really see features that grc adds (I wanted it because I was coming from Ubuntu and didn't want to rewrite my bash aliases...) * as Christopher Meng notes, there's a name clash with the GNU Radio GUI -- I don't see an easy way of resolving this * I don't know how to go about byte-compiling the Python scripts in the spec.. if that's indeed required (I also don't know how to tell if it is!) If anyone can advise on the name or packaging issue, though, I am happy to finish off the job just for the sake of completeness. -- 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 1032670] Review Request: docker-registry - Registry server for Docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032670
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Batts vba...@redhat.com ---
i was chewing on that too.
something like:
%if 0%{?fedora} = 18 || 0%{?rhel} = 7
%post
%systemd_post %{name}.service
%preun
%systemd_preun %{name}.service
%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart %{name}.service
%endif
And elsewhere, it works, but you still have to resolve all of the runtime
dependencies (which are not in EPEL).
Though, since all the runtime dependencies are available and used internally,
then it would simplify things to have a single spec that works everywhere.
--
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 1035425] New: Review Request: gfbgraph - GLib/GObject wrapper for the Facebook Graph API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035425 Bug ID: 1035425 Summary: Review Request: gfbgraph - GLib/GObject wrapper for the Facebook Graph API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: debars...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gfbgraph.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gfbgraph-0.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: description here GLib/GObject wrapper for the Facebook Graph API that integrates with GNOME Online Accounts. Fedora Account System Username: rishi -- 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 518317] Review Request: perdition - Mail Retrieval Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518317 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 518317] Review Request: perdition - Mail Retrieval Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518317 --- Comment #40 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #13 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline-0.0.1-5.20131123gitdb80fc.fc19.src.rpm * Wed Nov 27 2013 - Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com - 0.0.1-5.20131123gitdb80fc - Remove fontpatcher.py.patch - Moved BuildReqruies. - Try to fix build on EPEL5. a) There is only one patch and the comment would be the same as the filename, so I don't really see why to add a comment. b) Why does it need to work on EPEL5. Is this a requirement for Fedora? If yes, since when? -- 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 1032670] Review Request: docker-registry - Registry server for Docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032670 Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vba...@redhat.com -- 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 998141] Review Request: sdformat - The Simulation Description Format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998141 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 998141] Review Request: sdformat - The Simulation Description Format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998141 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sdformat-1.4.11-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sdformat-1.4.11-1.fc20 -- 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 1034387] Review Request: lasso - Library that implements the Liberty alliance Single Sign On specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034387 --- Comment #6 from Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com --- Fixed the rmaining things I could find in a new version. I have notified upstream of the bad fsf address in 780 files across sources. Hopefully nothing major remains. Spec URL: http://simo.fedorapeople.org/lasso/3/lasso.spec SRPM URL: http://simo.fedorapeople.org/lasso/3/lasso-2.3.6-0.20131125.3.fc20.src.rpm -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #14 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #13) Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline-0.0.1-5.20131123gitdb80fc. fc19.src.rpm b) Why does it need to work on EPEL5. Is this a requirement for Fedora? If yes, since when? In comment#10, I written: ... if your package must be built in EPEL5 too: It's up to you! It's not a requirement for Fedora and I didn't say that it was. -- 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 1027784] Review Request: gnome-logs - a log viewer for the systemd journal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027784 Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- You're welcome. I will review this package, but I don't have access to add you to Fedora 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 999366] Review Request: se-sandbox-runner -- Qt wrapper for SELinux Sandbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999366 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.fc19 -- 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 999366] Review Request: se-sandbox-runner -- Qt wrapper for SELinux Sandbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999366 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.fc20 -- 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 999366] Review Request: se-sandbox-runner -- Qt wrapper for SELinux Sandbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999366 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.fc18 -- 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 1022690] Review Request: gela-asis - Platform/compiler independent implementation of AdaSemantic Interface specification.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022690 Pavel Zhukov pzhu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pzhu...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #4 from Pavel Zhukov pzhu...@redhat.com --- Updated: SRPM: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis-0.3.1-2.fc20.src.rpm SPEC: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis.spec Rpath removed as documented in the packaging policy. Files without licenses specified are from ada standards: http://www.sigada.org/WG/asiswg/ASISWG_Results.html (from the ISO/IEC 8652:1995 mostly). -- 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 1018498] Review Request: wondershaper(NG) - Simple network shaper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018498 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||wondershaper-1.2.1-2.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-11-27 16:21:50 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wondershaper-1.2.1-2.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. 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 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - Control the network usage (A netcut like application)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 Bug 1015775 depends on bug 1018498, which changed state. Bug 1018498 Summary: Review Request: wondershaper(NG) - Simple network shaper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018498 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1015765] Review Request: islamic-menus - Islamic menus for desktops conforming with xdg standards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015765 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- islamic-menus-1.0.6-3.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. 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 1033358] Review Request: rubygem-resque - A Redis-backed queueing system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033358 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mmo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com --- Taking -- 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 1033358] Review Request: rubygem-resque - A Redis-backed queueing system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033358
Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com ---
Ken, looks great, fully complies with guidelines, builds against rawhide in
Koji fine.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6234295
$ md5sum resque-1.25.1.gem*
3d85f26b0346ff1fbfea3698e142eb92 resque-1.25.1.gem
3d85f26b0346ff1fbfea3698e142eb92 resque-1.25.1.gem.upstream
fedora-review has a complaint that Gem should use %gem_install macro, not
sure why it's saying this since your spec does infact use that, so ignoring
that.
ACK
==
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gems should require rubygems package
Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-resque-doc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mmorsi/workspace/fedora/1033358-rubygem-
resque/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[ ]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not
[Bug 1020456] Review Request: vagrant - an automation tool used to manage development environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmo...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Mo Morsi mmo...@redhat.com --- I can do the official review if need be. Alex, think you could address the previous feedback? 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #15 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Ah ok, cause on EPEL5 python fails in the setup and on EPEL6 it fails compiling the documentation. So I would prefer not to have them on EPEL. -- 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 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 --- Comment #25 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- I want to get this package in Fedora. -- 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #15)
So I would prefer not to have them on EPEL.
You don't need BuildRoot and
%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} = 5
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib()))}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1)))}
%endif
anymore.
Not even of the '%if 0%{?fedora}' conditional line for fdupes and %{buildroot}
cleaning in %install section.
--
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 1033358] Review Request: rubygem-resque - A Redis-backed queueing system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033358 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks Mo very much for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-resque Short Description: A Redis-backed queueing system 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 1035499] New: Review Request: mod_auth_mellon - A SAML 2.0 authentication module for the Apache Httpd Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035499 Bug ID: 1035499 Summary: Review Request: mod_auth_mellon - A SAML 2.0 authentication module for the Apache Httpd Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sso...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://simo.fedorapeople.org/mod_auth_mellon/0/mod_auth_mellon.spec SRPM URL: http://simo.fedorapeople.org/mod_auth_mellon/0/mod_auth_mellon-0.7.0-0.fc20.src.rpm Description: The mod_auth_mellon module is an authentication service that implements the SAML 2.0 federation protocol. It grants access based on the attributes received in assertions generated by a IdP server. Fedora Account System Username: simo -- 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 1035499] Review Request: mod_auth_mellon - A SAML 2.0 authentication module for the Apache Httpd Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035499 --- Comment #1 from Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com --- Note that this package depends on the lasso library. The review for lasso is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034387 To review this package you can do the following: $ fedora-review -b 1034387 $ fedora-review -b 1035499 The first review will build and install the lasso library in your mock chroot and make the dependency available in your mock environment to review mod_auth_mellon. -- 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 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 --- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #25) I want to get this package in Fedora. That'd be nice. Looking at the lack of recent responses from other people on this bug, I think you should just take over the review request, and maybe add other people as co-maintainers if they ever get sponsored. -- 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 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - Control the network usage (A netcut like application)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Initial thoughts:
1. Summary should be Arpspoof attacks protector, got from homepage.
Also the description should be changed:
TuxCut is a utility that protect linux computers againest arpspoof attacks
Features:
- Hide your machine (ip/MAC) from arp scanner utilities.
- list all the live host in your LAN.
- cut the connection between any live host and the gateway.
- use wondershaper to limit your upload or download speed.
You can notify them to remove that (wondershaper not avaliable in fedora
repos). after bug 1018498 is closed.
2. Add a note at %build
3. cp -r -- cp -ar
install -D -m -- install -pDm0644
4. Avoid using macro %{__mkdir_p} now, just mkdir -p is fine.
5. Remove %defattr(-,root,root,-)
6. No icon cache refresh script:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
7. Ask upstream to provide sources tarball download at
bitbucket(https://bitbucket.org/a_atalla/tuxcut/downloads).
--
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 --- Comment #46 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Well before solving that I think this package is in futile status. -- 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 1033987] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Fathom - Measure readability of English text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033987 Bug 1033987 depends on bug 1033986, which changed state. Bug 1033986 Summary: Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable - Routine for estimating syllable count in words https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033986 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- 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 1033986] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable - Routine for estimating syllable count in words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033986 Ruediger Landmann r.landm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-11-27 20:34:41 -- 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 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - Control the network usage (A netcut like application)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 --- Comment #15 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Message sent to TuxCut Author about wondershaper and link in downloads directory. = - Update summary line. - Update description. - General tweaks. - Remove %%defattr line. - Add icon cache update operation. = Spec : http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/tuxcut.spec SRPM : http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/tuxcut-5.0-13.oji.fc19.src.rpm -- 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 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - Arpspoof attacks protector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TuxCut -|Review Request: TuxCut - |Control the network usage |Arpspoof attacks protector |(A netcut like application) | -- 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 1008083] Review Request: hoogle - Haskell API Search
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008083 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 974725] Review Request: ghc-pretty-show - Tools for working with derived Show instances and generic inspection of values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974725 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 1034387] Review Request: lasso - Library that implements the Liberty alliance Single Sign On specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034387 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|na...@redhat.com -- 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 982204] Review Request: Elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 --- Comment #47 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com --- Hardly, it's easy enough to generate a local policy. I already have the package deployed on my production mail server. -- 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 1010741] Review Request: python-nikola - Static website and blog generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010741 --- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Ah..A bit busy now. Will finish after a while. -- 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 1020456] Review Request: vagrant - an automation tool used to manage development environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ing...@linpro.no --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- *** Bug 905396 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 905396] Review Request: rubygem-vagrant - Provisioning and deployment of virtual instances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905396 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||or...@cora.nwra.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-11-27 21:47:11 --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1020456 *** -- 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 1035425] Review Request: gfbgraph - GLib/GObject wrapper for the Facebook Graph API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035425 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - Arpspoof attacks protector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775
--- Comment #16 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
-- False positives.
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
-- You need to include a license(MUST).
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck:
Unknown or generated
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/a_atalla-tuxcut-16e25f5c1255/AboutDialog.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/a_atalla-tuxcut-16e25f5c1255/TuxCut.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/a_atalla-tuxcut-16e25f5c1255/pix_rc.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/a_atalla-tuxcut-16e25f5c1255/run.py
-- You can tell upstream to add.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/36x36/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/36x36
-- Better BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme, OPTIONAL
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in tuxcut
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large
[Bug 1035425] Review Request: gfbgraph - GLib/GObject wrapper for the Facebook Graph API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035425
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1. RPM can handle pkg-config well now.
Please remove Requires: pkgconfig in -devel.
2. %define api 0.2 -- %global api 0.2
3. %dir %{_includedir}/%{name}-%{api}
%{_includedir}/%{name}-%{api}/%{name}
Oh?
Why not just
%{_includedir}/%{name}-%{api}
4. Since you've defined an api macro, according to GNOME software release
habit, is it O to define version tag like this?
Version:%{api}.1
--
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 1035543] New: Review Request: ghc-async - Asynchronous IO operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035543
Bug ID: 1035543
Summary: Review Request: ghc-async - Asynchronous IO operations
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-async.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-async-2.0.1.4-27.fc19.src.rpm
Description:
This package provides a higher-level interface over threads, in which an
Async a is a concurrent thread that will eventually deliver a value of
type a. The package provides ways to create Async computations,
wait for their results, and cancel them.
Using Async is safer than using threads in two ways:
* When waiting for a thread to return a result, if the thread dies with an
exception then the caller must either re-throw the exception ('wait') or handle
it ('waitCatch'); the exception cannot be ignored.
* The API makes it possible to build a tree of threads that are automatically
killed when their parent dies (see 'withAsync').
--
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 1035543] Review Request: ghc-async - Asynchronous IO operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035543 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6235257 -- 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 979666] Review Request: perl-Text-Xslate - Scalable template engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979666 --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Finally cleanup this tough package... It seems that BR some modules in perl package itself is needed now, right? NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/perl-Text-Xslate.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/perl-Text-Xslate-3.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1035543] Review Request: ghc-async - Asynchronous IO operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035543 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|unspecified |low CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Whiteboard||Ready Severity|unspecified |low --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- async is currently a subpackage of haskell-platform, which I am working to split up into separate packages. 31 reverse deps in Hackage: currently only used by git-annex in Fedora. -- 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 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - Arpspoof attacks protector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 --- Comment #17 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #16) [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/36x36/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/36x36 -- Better BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme, OPTIONAL For file ownership issue this should be Requires: hicolor-icon-theme not BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme -- 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 225637] Merge Review: castor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225637 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed||2013-11-27 22:54:54 --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Thanks for fixing this issue. Package is APPROVED. Closing this review as required changes are already in rawhide package. -- 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 1025196] Review Request: fcitx-skk - Japanese SKK (Simple Kana Kanji) Engine for Fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025196 --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- any update here? -- 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 1034943] Review Request: python-elasticsearch - Client for Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034943
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 ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in:
Unknown or generated
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/docs/conf.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/__init__.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/client/__init__.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/client/cluster.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/client/indices.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/client/utils.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/__init__.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/base.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/esthrift/Rest.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/esthrift/__init__.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/esthrift/constants.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/esthrift/ttypes.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/http_requests.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/http_urllib3.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/memcached.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/pooling.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection/thrift.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/connection_pool.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/exceptions.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/helpers.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/serializer.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/elasticsearch/transport.py
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/elasticsearch-0.4.3/setup.py
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
-- Please fix.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to
[Bug 1015775] Review Request: TuxCut - Arpspoof attacks protector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 --- Comment #18 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Ooops..Sorry for the typo... -- 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 1015775] Review Request: tuxcut - Arpspoof attacks protector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: TuxCut -|Review Request: tuxcut - |Arpspoof attacks protector |Arpspoof attacks protector Alias|TuxCut |tuxcut -- 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 1032186] Review Request: rubygem-rack-openid - Provides a more HTTPish API around the ruby-openid library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032186
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org ---
Some other comments:
* Unpacking tarball in %prep
49 %setup -q -D -T -n %{gem_name}-%{version}
53 tar -xJf %{SOURCE2}
- I guess %setup -q -D -T -n %{gem_name}-%{version} -a 2 is
better.
* For Source1
- It is better to add set -e
- And I would remove rack-openid-$VERSION.zip (not a blocker)
- Also it is better to suppress this rpmlint:
-
rubygem-rack-openid.src: W: strange-permission
rubygem-rack-openid-generate-test-tarball.sh 0775L
-
Please check the comments above, and also your previous comments.
--
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 999959] Review Request: zmap - Network scanner for Internet-wide network studies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=59 --- Comment #20 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Hardly found that a wrong version was uploaded, sorry. Same URL: http://cicku.me/zmap-1.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1031400] Review Request: php-symfony-icu - Symfony Icu Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031400 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 1031400] Review Request: php-symfony-icu - Symfony Icu Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031400 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-icu-1.1.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony-icu-1.1.0-3.el6 -- 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 1031400] Review Request: php-symfony-icu - Symfony Icu Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031400 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.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 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony - PHP framework for web projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 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 1031400] Review Request: php-symfony-icu - Symfony Icu Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031400 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.fc19 -- 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 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony - PHP framework for web projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-2.3.7-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony-2.3.7-3.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 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony - PHP framework for web projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-2.3.7-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony-2.3.7-3.el6 -- 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 1021749] Review Request: php-symfony - PHP framework for web projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-2.3.7-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-symfony-2.3.7-3.fc19 -- 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 1010741] Review Request: python-nikola - Static website and blog generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010741 --- Comment #22 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.n67wU0 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd nikola-6.2.1 + DOCDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-nikola-6.2.1-1.fc21.i386/usr/share/doc/doc + export DOCDIR + /usr/bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-nikola-6.2.1-1.fc21.i386/usr/share/doc/doc + cp -pr docs/creating-a-site.txt docs/creating-a-theme.txt docs/extending.txt docs/internals.txt docs/manual.txt docs/social_buttons.txt docs/theming.txt docs/upgrading-to-v6.txt /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-nikola-6.2.1-1.fc21.i386/usr/share/doc/doc + exit 0 Provides: doc = 6.2.1-1.fc21 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-nikola-6.2.1-1.fc21.i386 error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/man/man1/nikola.1.gz RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/man/man1/nikola.1.gz Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/python-nikola.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py, line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py, line 376, in do raise mockbuild.exception.Error, (Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/python-nikola.spec'] LEAVE do -- EXCEPTION RAISED -- 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 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 --- Comment #27 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com --- Well, the problem continue. Please resolve the problem or wait the next version and if you can communicate that problem to upstream :) ONLY if you can't resolve the same. -- 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 1016753] Review Request: nodejs-bson - bson parser for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016753 --- Comment #15 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com --- # ls -lh /usr/lib/node_modules/bson/bson.node -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 57K Nov 19 13:55 /usr/lib/node_modules/bson/bson.node That is you output, and this is my output :S # ls -lh /usr/lib/node_modules/bson/bson.node -rwxrwxr-x 1 root root 57K Nov 19 08:37 /usr/lib/node_modules/bson/bson.node Is obvious than don't have the same permission. (I installed from rpm in koji [0]) I review in detail the source and is the only detail. If you fix it soon, I will approve. [0] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6172643 -- 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 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 --- Comment #28 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- THEN WHAT'S THIS? [rpmaker@fab site-packages]$ pwd stat -c %a %n * /home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages 755 pygit2 644 pygit2-0.19.1-py2.7.egg-info 755 _pygit2.so [rpmaker@fab site-packages]$ pwd stat -c %a %n * /home/rpmaker/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages 755 pygit2 644 pygit2-0.19.1-py3.3.egg-info 755 _pygit2.cpython-33m.so Auh? I'm puzzled. -- 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 1000662] Review Request: docker-io - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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
