[Bug 447532] Review Request: rubygem-krb5-auth - Kerberos binding for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=447532 Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@redhat.com --- Comment #15 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com --- Hello, this package is very stable (0.7 for several Fedora releases). Is there any chance of getting this into EPEL6? Thanks! -- 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 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|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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, zlib/libpng. 3 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mbuf/1023706-ghc-
zlib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 645120 bytes in 29 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 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 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and
[Bug 1033961] Review Request: powerline - The ultimate statusline/prompt utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033961 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 #19 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: powerline Short Description: The ultimate status-line/prompt utility Owners: asn Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- 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 --- Comment #2 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- Thanks Christopher for your suggestions, everything should be fixed by now except for the %global defines I prefer keeping on the top of the .spec file. -- 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 --- Comment #3 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- The new URL for the .spec file is http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/mirrorbrain/mirrorbrain-2.17.0-1.el6.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 1035934] Review Request: mod_form - Apache module that decodes data submitted from Web forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035934 --- Comment #1 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- New URL for the .src.rpm file: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/mod_form/mod_form-0.1-1.el6.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 1035770] Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Thanks a lot! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-wheel Short Description: A built-package format for Python Owners: bkabrda Branches: InitialCC: -- 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 Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gfbgraph Short Description: GLib/GObject wrapper for the Facebook Graph API Owners: rishi Branches: InitialCC: -- 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 1036130] New package postgresql-plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|postgresql |Package Review Version|20 |rawhide Assignee|prais...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com --- Reassigning to 'Package Review' component. First of all, please could you use different name? The postgresql-plv8 seems like it comes from postgresql.conf. Probably something like pgplv8 would be OK (we plan to rename postgresql-ip4r in future to remove the postgresql-* prefix, and same with other packages). Also, this is place you should probably start: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- 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 1036130] New package postgresql-plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com --- Mikko, thank you for trying to maintain new package for Fedora, btw.! (In reply to Pavel Raiskup from comment #1) Reassigning to 'Package Review' component. First of all, please could you use different name? The postgresql-plv8 seems like it comes from postgresql.conf. Sorry for the typo: s/postgresql.conf/postgresql.spec/. I would be able to review the package, though I am not sponsor so you'll need somebody else (if you are not already sponsored) for sponsoring. Could you post srpm spec file according to Package Review Process? -- 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 1036130] New package postgresql-plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 Mikko Tiihonen mikko.tiiho...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #830677|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #3 from Mikko Tiihonen mikko.tiiho...@iki.fi --- Created attachment 830691 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=830691action=edit Proposed plv8.spec file against plv8 1.4.1 version -- 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 994474] Review Request: python-qrencode - Python wrapper for the qrencode library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994474 --- Comment #24 from Marcel Haerry mh+fed...@scrit.ch --- Attached is the review. I probably need now a sponsor? -- 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 994474] Review Request: python-qrencode - Python wrapper for the qrencode library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994474 --- Comment #25 from Marcel Haerry mh+fed...@scrit.ch --- Created attachment 830693 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=830693action=edit Package 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
[Bug 1036130] New package postgresql-plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 --- Comment #4 from Mikko Tiihonen mikko.tiiho...@iki.fi --- Created attachment 830692 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=830692action=edit plv8 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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- google-phetsarath-fonts-1.01-1.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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-2.3.7-3.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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-10.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sdformat-1.4.11-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 1035661] Review Request: luajit - Just-In-Time Compiler for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035661 --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- new SPEC: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/luajit.spec new SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/luajit-2.0.2-3.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 1032670] Review Request: docker-registry - Registry server for Docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032670 Vincent Batts vba...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Vincent Batts vba...@redhat.com --- I am not blocking on that. I also am not sure on the process of adding el6 dist to the fedora build/publish process later. We'll almost certainly be hoping for a RHEL build eventually. Otherwise, LGTM. -- 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 #19 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- THANK YOU -- False positives. In fact it's needed for *.pyc files, even it doesn't need build! -- You can tell upstream to add. I'll message him. -- I'd like to know whare are these sources from? From master (url) included. -- Remember this has been obsoleted by arptables since rawhide(f21) arptables_jf provided by arptables. - Move documents into %%doc files. - Add hicolor-icon-theme to requires. - Add executable permission to tuxcut.desktop :). - Update summary in desktop file. - Specific env to python2 in both run.py and tuxcut in bindir. - Add python2-devel to BRs. Spec : http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/tuxcut.spec SRPM : http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/tuxcut-5.0-14.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 1036230] New: Review Request: faifa - Manages Intellon-based Power Line Communication devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036230 Bug ID: 1036230 Summary: Review Request: faifa - Manages Intellon-based Power Line Communication devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: space...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/faifa/faifa.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/faifa/faifa-0.1-0.1.20131129git68cffbb.fc19.src.rpm Description: Faifa can configure Power Line Communication devices (e.g. HomePlug AV) using Qualcomm (formerly Intellon) chipsets. It supports all Intellon-specific management and control frames as well as standard management frames. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha -- 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 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 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-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- 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 989847] Review Request: mingw-plibc - MinGW package for plibc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org ---
Release: 1.0.svn20130812.r147%{?dist}
Actually, the packaging guidelines say to use 20130812svn147, not
svn20130812.r147.
--
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 #23 from Pete Travis m...@petetravis.com --- Oops, that should be fixed now. -- 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 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Package APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
None of these issues are blockers, just recommendations.
- I recommend deleting the Generated by gem2rpm comment, since the version
number will grow stale.
- I recommend extending the shebang replacements to bin/rt2, bin/rdrt2,
bin/rt/rt2, bin/rt/rdrt2, since those files are causing RPM to autorequire
/usr/bin/env.
I've opened https://github.com/genki/rttool/issues/1 upstream for the
incorrect-fsf-address issue.
= 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]: 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]: 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 attachment).
[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:
[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 preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright
[Bug 1032108] Review Request: Yarock - A Lightweight and Beautiful Music Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032108
--- Comment #40 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org ---
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/application-x-yarock.png
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/application-x-yarock.png
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/application-x-yarock.png
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/application-x-yarock.png
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/application-x-yarock.png
I agree with Rex Dieter (comment #11) there. Enumerating every single icon (and
even every single size!) explicitly is totally pointless. It will just fail the
build for no reason when upstream adds new icons.
I disagree with Terje's comment #12 here:
I want control over shipped files, changes should trigger a failed build.
Control is more important than convenience for the packager.
It really makes no sense to fail the build on new added icons. It is normal for
applications to ship multiple icons: an application icon, a MIME type icon,
custom actions not covered by the icon themes etc. There is no reason to
require manually editing the specfile each time one is added.
The use of globs is at the packager's discretion. As long as the directory
ownership is correct (i.e. you MUST NOT use something like /* which ends up
owning /usr, of course!), there is no guideline that forbids using globs.
--
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 Flags|fedora-review? |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 1036254] New: Review Request: hamster-time-tracker - The Linux time tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036254
Bug ID: 1036254
Summary: Review Request: hamster-time-tracker - The Linux time
tracker
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/hamster-time-tracker/hamster-time-tracker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/hamster-time-tracker/hamster-time-tracker-1.03.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Project Hamster is time tracking for individuals. It helps you to keep track on
how much time you have spent during the day on activities you choose to track.
Whenever you change from doing one task to other, you change your current
activity in Hamster. After a while you can see how many hours you have spent on
what. Maybe print it out, or export to some suitable format, if time reporting
is a request of your employee.
Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
rpmlint output:
[asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/hamster-time-tracker.spec
./hamster-time-tracker-1.03.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64/result/*.rpm
../SPECS/hamster-time-tracker.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
../SPECS/hamster-time-tracker.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
../SPECS/hamster-time-tracker.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
hamster-hamster-time-tracker-1.03.3.tar.gz
hamster-time-tracker.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
hamster-time-tracker.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
hamster-time-tracker.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
hamster-hamster-time-tracker-1.03.3.tar.gz
hamster-time-tracker.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/gconf/schemas/hamster-time-tracker.schemas
hamster-time-tracker.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/bash_completion.d/hamster.bash
hamster-time-tracker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hamster-service
hamster-time-tracker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hamster
hamster-time-tracker.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
hamster-windows-service
hamster-time-tracker.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
hamster-time-tracker.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
hamster-time-tracker.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
hamster-time-tracker.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
hamster-time-tracker.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
hamster-hamster-time-tracker-1.03.3.tar.gz
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.
--
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 #41 from James Abtahi jamescateg...@gmail.com --- I agree with Rex Dieter (comment #11) there. Enumerating every single icon (and even every single size!) explicitly is totally pointless. It will just fail the build for no reason when upstream adds new icons. I disagree with Terje's comment #12 here Now the vote is 2 to 1 in favor of using globs. In that case, We revert to globs. Since Kevin Fenzi is busy at the moment, I just hope that this package find a reviewer as soon as possible. Update SPEC: http://jam3s.fedorapeople.org/yarock.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
