[Bug 981707] Review Request: bmon - bandwidth monitor and rate estimator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=981707 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Graf tg...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Terje Røsten from comment #13) Thomas, can you please push bmon to stable? Or any reason to keep it in testing for many weeks? Pushed to stable. -- 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 999959] Review Request: zmap - Network scanner for Internet-wide network studies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=59
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #21 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6235798
$ rpmlint -i -v *
zmap.armv7hl: I: checking
zmap.armv7hl: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uplink - up link,
up-link, linkup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
zmap.armv7hl: I: checking-url https://zmap.io (timeout 10 seconds)
zmap.i686: I: checking
zmap.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uplink - up link, up-link,
linkup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
zmap.i686: I: checking-url https://zmap.io (timeout 10 seconds)
zmap.src: I: checking
zmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uplink - up link, up-link,
linkup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
zmap.src: I: checking-url https://zmap.io (timeout 10 seconds)
zmap.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/zmap/zmap/archive/v1.1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
zmap.x86_64: I: checking
zmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uplink - up link,
up-link, linkup
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
zmap.x86_64: I: checking-url https://zmap.io (timeout 10 seconds)
zmap-debuginfo.armv7hl: I: checking
zmap-debuginfo.armv7hl: I: checking-url https://zmap.io (timeout 10 seconds)
zmap-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
zmap-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url https://zmap.io (timeout 10 seconds)
zmap-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
zmap-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://zmap.io (timeout 10 seconds)
zmap.spec: I: checking-url https://github.com/zmap/zmap/archive/v1.1.0.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
No issues besides some ignorable spelling errors.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
ASL 2.0
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
6a73b4cfe62bf9ff31f1d075eac066671fe5f5a6e1b97a845361509c94611eb7
v1.1.0.tar.gz
6a73b4cfe62bf9ff31f1d075eac066671fe5f5a6e1b97a845361509c94611eb7
v1.1.0.tar.gz.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without
[Bug 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@redhat.com --- Comment #29 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Christopher, Yohan, take the built RPMs and do a rpm -qvlp packagename and verify file permissions there. rpm -qlvp python-pygit2-0.19.1-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot 0 Nov 28 09:24 /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pygit2 -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 151184 Nov 28 09:24 /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_pygit2.so etc. -- 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 999959] Review Request: zmap - Network scanner for Internet-wide network studies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=59 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Thank you. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: zmap Short Description: Network scanner for Internet-wide network studies Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 -- 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 #30 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Thanks, Matthias! -- 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 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 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-ensure_valid_encoding Short Description: Replace bad bytes in given encoding with replacement strings Owners: mtasaka 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 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 --- Comment #17 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- * Thu Nov 28 2013 - Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com - 0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc - Remove EPEL support. Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/powerline/powerline-0.0.1-6.20131123gitdb80fc.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 1027513] Review Request: rubygem-axiom-types - Abstract types for logic programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027513 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Taking I would appreciate it if you would review one of my review requests (e.g. bug 1031317 ) -- 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 1000662] Review Request: docker-io - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-9.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docker-io-0.7.0-9.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 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- ( While rubygem-rdtool is currently in testing on F-19 and F-20, these are in koji buildroot, because I made them have override tag, so koji scratch build for rttool can be done for F-21, 20 and 19) -- 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 1000662] Review Request: docker-io - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-9.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docker-io-0.7.0-9.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 1035661] New: Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035661 Bug ID: 1035661 Summary: Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/luajit.spec SRPM URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/luajit-2.0.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: LuaJIT implements the full set of language features defined by Lua 5.1. The virtual machine (VM) is API- and ABI-compatible to the standard Lua interpreter and can be deployed as a drop-in replacement. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1020456] Review Request: vagrant - an automation tool used to manage development environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 --- Comment #9 from Alex Drahon adra...@redhat.com --- I'm currently pushing changes upstream to solve integration issues. I'll address the packaging issues in the next few days. 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 718681] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681 Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-11-28 04:30:07 --- Comment #27 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- I submitted new review. If anyone want to maintain - I can add as co-maintainer. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1035661 *** -- 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 1035661] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035661 Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC||alaps...@fastmail.fm --- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- *** Bug 718681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #27 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I will finish this soon. BTW, I found that firehol is not dead: http://firehol.org/download/latest/ Maybe you need to update it and I remove the provides line in sanewall spec? -- 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 1035661] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035661 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1035661] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035661 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Do you mind me to take over 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 1000662] Review Request: docker-io - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 --- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-9.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docker-io-0.7.0-9.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 829718] Review Request: drupal6-imagecache_profiles - Image cache for User Profiles for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829718 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-imagecache_profiles-1.4-0.1.rc1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-imagecache_profiles-1.4-0.1.rc1.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 1035661] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035661 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- No ;) Do this! -- 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 1031569] Review Request: cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts - Marathi language font from CDAC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031569 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts - |cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts - |Free Devanagari script |Marathi language font from |fonts for Marathi language |CDAC -- 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
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com ---
Some issues has present. Fix it ;)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
Line 31: replacee $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot}
- For Changelog please use date in 07 or 7 format
- You packaged not latest gnome-logs. Please update to 3.11.2
- Update icon cache in triggers
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- Use %make_install instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
- More better to move desktop-file-validate to %check section
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: 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:
GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 1 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/brain/rpmbuild/review-gnome-logs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package 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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include
[Bug 1032670] Review Request: docker-registry - Registry server for Docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032670 --- Comment #9 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- My POV is that the review request here is about Fedora, Rawhide especially. I have locally some code prepared to add EPEL support, but I'm waiting for approval, so I can work on a stable base. Please let me know if you see blocking issues / you want to do additional review or please set the fedora-review flag to +, so I can proceed. -- 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 #31 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Particularly for packagers, there's also rpmls, $ rpm -qf $(which rpmls) rpmdevtools-8.4-2.fc20.noarch which makes listing package contents much more convenient. By default (i.e. without passing any options to it) it accepts .rpm file paths as well as installed package names. To take a look at user/group ownership, only option -l is needed. -- 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 1034413] Review Request: SDL2_ttf - TrueType font rendering library for SDL2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034413
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com ---
Fix some issues and go ;)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Use %make_install instead of make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
- Add to %prep rm -rf external for 100% dropping bundles
- Do not own /usr/include/SDL2/
- Fix unused shlib dependency
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or
generated, zlib/libpng. 652 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/brain/1034413-SDL2_ttf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/SDL2(SDL2-devel)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in
[Bug 1034413] Review Request: SDL2_ttf - TrueType font rendering library for SDL2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034413 --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- About license, I don't know is COPYING.txt license or we need to put zlib license separate ? -- 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 1031569] Review Request: cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts - Marathi language font from CDAC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031569 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- PACKAGE APPROVED. -- 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 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) You're welcome. I will review this package, but I don't have access to add you to Fedora Packages. Hi Igor, You shouldn't take up the review if you're not a sponsor. You should just do an unofficial review but not assign it to yourself. (It won't show up in the list of review tickets that sponsors look at now that you've taken it up and set the fedora-review flag.) Please unset the fedora-review flag and the other fields so a sponsor can set them when he looks at the ticket. :) Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 --- Comment #28 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #27) BTW, I found that firehol is not dead: http://firehol.org/download/latest/ Well they sure took a long hiatus. And also changed the location of the tarball, so it was not picked up by release monitoring. Maybe you need to update it and I remove the provides line in sanewall spec? OK. -- 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 569692] Review Request: wordpress-plugin-si-captcha-for-wordpress - Captcha plugin for Wordpress
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569692 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||da...@gnsa.us Flags||needinfo?(da...@gnsa.us) --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Well, how many plugins can we package ideally? If no response in 2 weeks, I think we can close this. -- 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 550234] Review Request: tnt - C++ templates for scientific computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550234 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Matt Chan from comment #24) Hi Peter, Sorry I haven't been very responsive on this in awhile. School has been taking up a lot of time lately and I haven't been able to balance everything in life. I also don't know how the progress is going in the BRL-CAD project on re-factoring the code to be consistent with fedora guidelines. To my knowledge, the upstream for STEP and UTAH still have not been taken over. It may be best to close this ticket for awhile. I will be graduating in April and may have more time in the future to come back to this. There may also be new developments in the project by that time. Matt ping after 3 months about tntv3. -- 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 549980] Review Request: jama - C++ matrix templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549980 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- ping again. -- 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 518949] Review Request: brlcad - computer aided solid modelling and design
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518949 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Fine. I will try to make an RPM of stepcode. -- 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 1027784] Review Request: gnome-logs - a log viewer for the systemd journal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027784
--- Comment #6 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #4)
Some issues has present. Fix it ;)
Thanks for the review.
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
Fixed. The link is now
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
Line 31: replacee $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot}
- For Changelog please use date in 07 or 7 format
- You packaged not latest gnome-logs. Please update to 3.11.2
- Use %make_install instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
- More better to move desktop-file-validate to %check section
Fixed.
- Update icon cache in triggers
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
Is this necessary? No icon is installed, although 3.11.3 will have an icon.
gnome-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemd - systems,
system, system d
gnome-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd -
systems, system, system d
gnome-logs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-logs
gnome-logs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemd - systems, system,
system d
gnome-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd - systems,
system, system d
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
These are not spelling errors. I have filed an upstream bug about a man page:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=719485
--
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 --- Comment #7 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Updated spec URL: http://amigadave.com/temp/gnome-logs.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://amigadave.com/temp/gnome-logs-3.11.2-1.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 1027784] Review Request: gnome-logs - a log viewer for the systemd journal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027784 --- Comment #8 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Additionally, I did another scratch build n Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6236357 -- 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|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org
Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #9 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #5)
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3)
You're welcome. I will review this package, but I don't have access to add
you to Fedora Packages.
Hi Igor,
You shouldn't take up the review if you're not a sponsor. You should just do
an unofficial review but not assign it to yourself. (It won't show up in the
list of review tickets that sponsors look at now that you've taken it up and
set the fedora-review flag.) Please unset the fedora-review flag and the
other fields so a sponsor can set them when he looks at the ticket. :)
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur
;)
David, you should read how-to get sponsor[0] and complete Join[1]
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
From me: Install icons and update icon cache, because package w/o/ icons is
no-useful. You can:
* Download upstream icons, archive they (by git)
* Add as Source1:
* tar xv %{SOURCE1} in spec
* Install icons to hicolor theme (by .spec) %install section (man install)
* Update cache (by .spec)
* Fix .desktop.in file for using Icon files (by .spec) in %install section
(after all) (man desktop-file-edit)
P.S. I'm recommend Jon Ciesla (limb) as sponsor ;)
--
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 829730] Review Request: drupal6-imagefield - Image Field Module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829730 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-imagefield-3.11-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-imagefield-3.11-1.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 1035770] New: Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 Bug ID: 1035770 Summary: Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bkab...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/wheel/python-wheel.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/wheel/python-wheel-0.22.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A built-package format for Python. A wheel is a ZIP-format archive with a specially formatted filename and the .whl extension. It is designed to contain all the files for a PEP 376 compatible install in a way that is very close to the on-disk format. Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6236945 -- 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 1035770] Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mstuc...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mstuc...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- I'll take this. -- 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 1035770] Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@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 1035770] Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- Okay, it looks good to me. Approved! -- 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 1024134] Review Request: gust-antykwa-torunska-fonts - Two-element typeface for typesetting of small prints
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024134 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@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 1033987] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Fathom - Measure readability of English text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033987 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@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 1024134] Review Request: gust-antykwa-torunska-fonts - Two-element typeface for typesetting of small prints
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024134 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 1035803] New: Review Request: jetty-schemas - XML Schemas for Jetty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035803 Bug ID: 1035803 Summary: Review Request: jetty-schemas - XML Schemas for Jetty Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: msima...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jetty-schemas.spec SRPM URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jetty-schemas-3.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: XML Schemas for Jetty. Fedora Account System Username: msimacek -- 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 #32 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com --- Christopher Meng, you're right, I check the permission installing the both packages rpm. So, fedora-review display me the errors. Rpmlint (installed packages) 3-pygit2t python-pygit2-doc python-pygit2 python python-pygit2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_pygit2.so 0775L python3-pygit2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/_pygit2.cpython-33m.so 0775L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Michael Schwendt, I can skip that error?, because the files have correct permission. -- 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 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Remove BuildRoot line. Package approved ! -- 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 1031588] Review Request: google-phetsarath-fonts - The font for the Lao language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031588 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 1020309] Review Request: kde-connect - KDE Connect client for communication with smartphones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020309 --- Comment #6 from Martin Bříza mbr...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/kdeconnect/kde-connect.spec SRPM URL: http://mbriza.fedorapeople.org/kdeconnect/kde-connect-0.4.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Updated to latest upstream release + some minor fixes in the spec -- 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 1031588] Review Request: google-phetsarath-fonts - The font for the Lao language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031588 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- google-phetsarath-fonts-1.01-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/google-phetsarath-fonts-1.01-1.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 1031588] Review Request: google-phetsarath-fonts - The font for the Lao language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031588 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- google-phetsarath-fonts-1.01-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/google-phetsarath-fonts-1.01-1.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 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 #7 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks for the suggestions. I've fixed all of them except the strange-permission error in rpmlint. I did change it from 775 to 755, but rpmlint is still unhappy that the permissions are not 644. To me it makes sense to keep the script executable. * Thu Nov 28 2013 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com - 1.4.1-2 - Address issues from package review (RHBZ #1032186) - Correct comment about LICENSE - Unpack the tests tarball during %%setup - Use set -e in tests tarball generation script - Clean up zip file in tests tarball generation script Exact changes in Git: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-rack-openid.git/commit/?id=ca565b5b5a4322bcb8df6ae616055feb7cf46db6 Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-rack-openid.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-rack-openid-1.4.1-2.fc21.src.rpm F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6235787 -- 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 1033987] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Fathom - Measure readability of English text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033987
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
The whiteboard says this package is not ready but I have tested this package in
mock.
+ package builds in rawhide mock
+ rpmlint on rpms gave
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ source verified with upstream as (sha1256sum)
srpm tarball ff90d74714d3fc04b928b1d467cfbe206d89cfce4a466b065311d98e03849897
upstream tarball
ff90d74714d3fc04b928b1d467cfbe206d89cfce4a466b065311d98e03849897
+ make check gave
All tests successful.
Files=3, Tests=15, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 0.12 cusr 0.01
csys = 0.15 CPU)
+ Package perl-Lingua-EN-Fathom-1.15-1.fc21.noarch
Provides: perl(Lingua::EN::Fathom) = 1.15 perl-Lingua-EN-Fathom = 1.15-1.fc21
Requires: perl(Lingua::EN::Syllable) perl(strict) perl(warnings)
I suppose this package also need to be built in EPEL so spec looks ok.
suggestions
1) yum/rpm picks required perl dependencies automatically so this package don't
need following in spec
Requires: perl(Lingua::EN::Syllable)
2) you may want to remove line also
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
--
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
--- Comment #2 from Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gfbgraph.spec
SRPM: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gfbgraph-0.2.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
1. RPM can handle pkg-config well now.
Please remove Requires: pkgconfig in -devel.
Done.
2. %define api 0.2 -- %global api 0.2
Done.
3. %dir %{_includedir}/%{name}-%{api}
%{_includedir}/%{name}-%{api}/%{name}
Oh?
Why not just
%{_includedir}/%{name}-%{api}
Mostly a matter of style or habit to make it obvious (to myself?) that it is a
directory and not a file.
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
Done.
--
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 1035661] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035661 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) Do you mind me to take over this review? (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) No ;) Do this! Just to make things really clear - Igor would like you, Christopher, to review this. -- 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 1000662] Review Request: docker-io - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 --- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-10.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docker-io-0.7.0-10.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 1035897] New: Review Request: open-sans-fonts - a humanist sans-serif typeface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035897 Bug ID: 1035897 Summary: Review Request: open-sans-fonts - a humanist sans-serif typeface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pvobo...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://pvoborni.fedorapeople.org/open-sans-fonts/open-sans-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://pvoborni.fedorapeople.org/open-sans-fonts/open-sans-fonts-1.10-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Open Sans is a humanist sans serif typeface designed by Steve Matteson, Type Director of Ascender Corp. This version contains the complete 897 character set, which includes the standard ISO Latin 1, Latin CE, Greek and Cyrillic character sets. Open Sans was designed with an upright stress, open forms and a neutral, yet friendly appearance. It was optimized for print, web, and mobile interfaces, and has excellent legibility characteristics in its letter forms. Fedora Account System Username: pvoborni Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6237798 This is the first package I'm submitting to Fedora. Thus I'm seeking a sponsor. Additional info: I could not find a proper upstream. Since the font was commisioned by Google, the source archive was created from a one downloaded from Google Fonts web service. During rpm build, font's embed permission is set to 'installable' according to discussion on fedora-devel: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-November/192518.html -- 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 1035897] Review Request: open-sans-fonts - a humanist sans-serif typeface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035897 Petr Vobornik pvobo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 --- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-10.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docker-io-0.7.0-10.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 1000662] Review Request: docker-io - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000662 --- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-10.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docker-io-0.7.0-10.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 518317] Review Request: perdition - Mail Retrieval Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518317 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perdition-2.0-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perdition-2.0-4.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 518317] Review Request: perdition - Mail Retrieval Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518317 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perdition-2.0-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perdition-2.0-4.fc19 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perdition-2.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perdition-2.0-4.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 518317] Review Request: perdition - Mail Retrieval Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518317 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 1035803] Review Request: jetty-schemas - XML Schemas for Jetty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035803 Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1030874 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1030874 [Bug 1030874] jetty-9.1.0.v20131115 is available -- 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 1035934] New: Review Request: mod_form - Apache module that decodes data submitted from Web forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035934 Bug ID: 1035934 Summary: Review Request: mod_form - Apache module that decodes data submitted from Web forms Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: andrea.v...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/mod_form/mod_form.spec SRPM URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/mod_form/mod_form-0.1-1.src.rpm Description: Utility to decode data submitted from Web forms. It deals with both GET and POST methods where the data are encoded using the default content type application/x-www-form-urlencoded. It does not decode multipart/form-data (file upload) forms: for those you should use mod_upload. Fedora Account System Username: averi -- 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 1035934] Review Request: mod_form - Apache module that decodes data submitted from Web forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035934 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@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 1035935] New: Review Request: mirrorbrain - A download redirector and metalink generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035935 Bug ID: 1035935 Summary: Review Request: mirrorbrain - A download redirector and metalink generator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: andrea.v...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/mirrorbrain/mirrorbrain.spec SRPM URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/mirrorbrain/mirrorbrain-2.17.0-1.src.rpm Description: MirrorBrain is a Download Redirector and generates cryptohashes, Metalinks, and even Torrents. Fedora Account System Username: averi -- 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 1035935] Review Request: mirrorbrain - A download redirector and metalink generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035935 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@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 1026376] Review Request: fontawesome-fonts - Iconic font set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026376 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1026380 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026380 [Bug 1026380] Review Request: corebird - Native GTK Twitter client -- 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 1026380] Review Request: corebird - Native GTK Twitter client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026380 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1026376 | --- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Hi, Upstream has released version 0.5 which does not depend on fontawesome and also contains a bunch of fixes and feature additions. I think the app is now in good enough state for end users, so we could continue the review and quickly get it into the Fedora repositories. Ryan, here's an updated spec for 0.5 (http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/corebird.spec) that you can refer Could you please submit an updated srpm that I could now formally review? Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026376 [Bug 1026376] Review Request: fontawesome-fonts - Iconic font set -- 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 1035935] Review Request: mirrorbrain - A download redirector and metalink generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035935
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I tried to package it about a year ago. And this spec you created is more like
just a copy-and-paste from SUSE.
Inital thoughts based on my version:
1. %define -- %global
2. Please move these:
%define mirrorbrain_user mirrorbrain
%define mirrorbrain_group mirrorbrain
%define apxs /usr/sbin/apxs
BuildRequires:httpd-devel
BuildRequires:geoip geoip-devel mod_form
BuildRequires:python-devel
%define apache apache
%define apache_libexecdir %(%{apxs} -q LIBEXECDIR)
%define apache_sysconfdir %(%{apxs} -q SYSCONFDIR)
%define apache_includedir %(%{apxs} -q INCLUDEDIR)
%define apache_serverroot %(%{apxs} -q PREFIX)
%define apache_localstatedir %(%{apxs} -q LOCALSTATEDIR)
below the
Source:
http://mirrorbrain.org/files/releases/mirrorbrain-%{version}.tar.gz
3. Please remove BuildRoot/rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%clean
4. %postun
%_postun_userdel %{mirrorbrain_user}
Well, please read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups?rd=Packaging/UsersAndGroups#Allocation_Strategies
5. Remove
%{!?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(True))}
6. Remove all Autoreqprov:on
7. install with -p to preserve the timestamp.
8. Release:1 is invalid.
9. Mix using {buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, please consolidate
10.Requires:perl-Config-IniFiles
Requires:perl-libwww-perl
Requires:perl-Digest-MD4
Requires:perl-DBD-Pg
Requires:perl-TimeDate
Invalid, please see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides
--
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 1035935] Review Request: mirrorbrain - A download redirector and metalink generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035935 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1035934 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035934 [Bug 1035934] Review Request: mod_form - Apache module that decodes data submitted from Web forms -- 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 1035934] Review Request: mod_form - Apache module that decodes data submitted from Web forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035934 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1035935 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035935 [Bug 1035935] Review Request: mirrorbrain - A download redirector and metalink generator -- 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: LGPL (v2.1 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: GPL (v2 or later) - /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/ltmain.sh --- This can be ignored safely. LGPL (v2.1 or later) /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-album.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-album.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-authorizer.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-authorizer.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-common.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-common.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-connectable.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-connectable.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-goa-authorizer.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-goa-authorizer.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-node.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-node.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-photo.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-photo.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-simple-authorizer.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-simple-authorizer.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-user.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph-user.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/gfbgraph/gfbgraph.h Unknown or generated /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/tests/credentials.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/tests/gtestutils.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/tests/test-async.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/gfbgraph-0.2.1/tests/test.c [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gir-1.0(gobject- introspection-devel, libgee-devel, GConf2-devel, gtk2-devel, libgee06-devel, gtk3-devel, atk-devel, gdk-pixbuf2-devel, libgtop2-devel), /usr/lib/girepository-1.0(gobject-introspection, libxklavier, GConf2, libgnome-keyring, gdk-pixbuf2, libgtop2, libgee06, fcitx-libs, gtk2, gtk3, atk, vte3, gcr, libgee, libzapojit, gucharmap, libmash) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]:
[Bug 1034492] Review Request: asciinema - Record and upload terminal sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034492 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I came up with a thought, as far as I can know, Fedora will move to python3 stack soon after 2~3 releases, so I think we just need to have one package asciinema built upon python2, when Fedora moves to python3, we rebuild itupon python3. The reason of not keeping python3-asciinema is that I think this is a very weird and unwise naming way. Users just want to install asciinema itself and want to use it as soon as possible, they don't need to care about whether it's built upon py2 or py3, so I think we don't need to waste space in the repo ;) -- 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 1024259] Review Request: python-chai - Easy to use mocking/stub framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024259 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-chai-0.4.5-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-11-29 01:56:27 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-chai-0.4.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 819687] Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-rtkit-0.6.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- 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 1018498] Review Request: wondershaper(NG) - Simple network shaper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018498 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wondershaper-1.2.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1027503] Review Request: rubygem-vegas - Create executable versions of Sinatra/Rack apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027503 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-vegas-0.1.11-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-11-29 01:57:09 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-vegas-0.1.11-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- islamic-menus-1.0.6-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- islamic-menus-1.0.6-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wondershaper-1.2.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1031569] Review Request: cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts - Marathi language font from CDAC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031569 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Ah! this is already approved. Pravin should be happy now :) but my suggestions are create a font page on fedora wiki and remove Group tag and also mention http://sakalmarathi.cdac.in/fr/licences.php in comment for LICENSE file in spec. Then this package is ready to go 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 1035803] Review Request: jetty-schemas - XML Schemas for Jetty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035803 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@redhat.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 1023706] Review Request: ghc-zlib - Compression and decompression in the gzip and zlib formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023706 Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||shakthim...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shakthim...@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 1019215] Review Request: ghc-network-enumerator - Enumerators for network sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019215 Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||shakthim...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shakthim...@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 1005522] Review Request: ghc-mtl - Monad classes using functional dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005522 Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||shakthim...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shakthim...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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
