[Bug 1034341] Review Request: gstreamer1-python - PyGObject overrides for GStreamer 1.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341 --- Comment #7 from Simon Farnsworth si...@farnz.org.uk --- Whichever would be the best way to get this package maintained in upstream Fedora. I have to have it in my employer's in-house fork of Fedora, hence sharing what I'm doing with upstream (my life is easier if the divergence between upstream Fedora and the in-house fork is minimised). I notice that your dependency list is larger than mine; I'm not sure why you're pulling in pygtk2 and gstreamer1-plugins-base in Requires (neither of them should be necessary to make this work - pygtk2 has been replaced by pygobject3 bindings, and gstreamer1-plugins-base isn't needed unless you want to use one of the plugins it contains). You also have what look to me like outdated BuildRequires; libX11-devel, pygtk2-devel and gstreamer1-plugins-base-devel shouldn't be needed, and the release candidate versions need gstreamer1-devel = 1.2.0. With these differences explained away (or fixed if they're mistakes), your package looks good. -- 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 1036311] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin - Plugin for gSoap to use glite-security-gss as the communication layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036311 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036311] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin - Plugin for gSoap to use glite-security-gss as the communication layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036311 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 1036311] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin - Plugin for gSoap to use glite-security-gss as the communication layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036311 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.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 1036311] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin - Plugin for gSoap to use glite-security-gss as the communication layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036311 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.fc18 -- 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 1036311] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin - Plugin for gSoap to use glite-security-gss as the communication layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036311 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.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 1039177] Review Request: plymouth-theme-doge - Plymouth Very Doge Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039177 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2013-12-07 08:32:30 --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- After some discussion offline, it seems that the images used by this theme are copyrighted and not permissible for Fedora. Closing as WONTFIX. -- 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 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #12 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- All fixed, please look at the latest scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6267548 . This is the recently released 5.4.1 stable version. Current spec adapted both for RHEL and Fedora: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/opensmtpd.spec (I have used 'fedora' and 'rhel' conditionals), there are also some changes in initscripts and PAM file replacement. Some notes: 1) As for the E: missing-call-to-setgroups, here is the developer's answer for the reference: Unlike other delivery backends where we do setgroups() as can be seen in smtpd.c:forkmda():1117, we can't do the same with mail.local which requires root to write in the spooler but also for its locking (think NFS amongst other weird but popular use-cases). mail.local never really drops privileges, it simply reduces them as a mean to reduce the code that runs as root but it's a best effort. 2) E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/empty/smtpd 0711L - actually the same as for openssh directory (var/empty/sshd), so I haven't changed it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039293] New: Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-maildir - Single-purpose implementation of maildir-like queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039293 Bug ID: 1039293 Summary: Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-maildir - Single-purpose implementation of maildir-like queue Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-maildir-2.3.9-1/glite-lbjp-common-maildir.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-maildir-2.3.9-1/glite-lbjp-common-maildir-2.3.9-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Single-purpose implementation of maildir-like queue. It is used to pass data from gLite Bookkeeping server to Job Provenance. Fedora Account System Username: valtri Notes: - I'm upstream maintainer - koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6267406 -- 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 1039296] New: Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface - Public API to JP service internal interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039296 Bug ID: 1039296 Summary: Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface - Public API to JP service internal interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9-1/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9-1/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Definition of interfaces required to build plugins for Job Provenance services and implementation of minimal library of support functions. Fedora Account System Username: valtri Notes: - I'm upstream maintainer - koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6267414 -- 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 1036311] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin - Plugin for gSoap to use glite-security-gss as the communication layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036311 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lbjp-common-gsoap-plugin-3.2.10-2.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 1039298] New: Review Request: basepom - All the BASE POMs in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039298 Bug ID: 1039298 Summary: Review Request: basepom - All the BASE POMs in the world Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/basepom.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/basepom-2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Glue to build the various versions of the BASE POMs. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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 1039299] New: Review Request: jackson-module-afterburner - Jackson module that uses byte-code generation to further speed up data binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039299 Bug ID: 1039299 Summary: Review Request: jackson-module-afterburner - Jackson module that uses byte-code generation to further speed up data binding Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-afterburner.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-afterburner-2.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Experimental extension to Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org) used to enhance access functionality using byte-code generation. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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 1039300] New: Review Request: jackson-datatype-guava - Add-on module for Jackson JSON processor which handles Guava data-types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039300 Bug ID: 1039300 Summary: Review Request: jackson-datatype-guava - Add-on module for Jackson JSON processor which handles Guava data-types Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-guava.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-guava-2.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Add-on datatype-support module for Jackson that handles Guava types (currently mostly just collection ones). Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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 1039301] New: Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301 Bug ID: 1039301 Summary: Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Add-on module for Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org) to support Joda (http://joda-time.sourceforge.net/) data types. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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 1039302] New: Review Request: jmxutils - Exporting JMX MBean made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039302 Bug ID: 1039302 Summary: Review Request: jmxutils - Exporting JMX MBean made easy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jmxutils.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jmxutils-1.14-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Collection of generic utility methods to support JMX MBean. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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 1039302] Review Request: jmxutils - Exporting JMX MBean made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039302 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6267720 -- 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 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 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 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.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 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.fc18 -- 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 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.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 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 --- Comment #15 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- My sincerest apologies for the massive delay :( -- 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 --- Comment #11 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- I finally have a new submission! Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-agent-2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm ChangeLog: - Added a patch to make the test suites work offline - Added a patch to disable the ban test suite - Removed the default -S option from the service http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6268014 The race condition was just the tip of the iceberg. There were more issues in the test suite: unnecessary access to the Internet. The race condition in itself doesn't seem to belong to this package. Varnish has a background thread that handles cache invalidation based on bans. Some ban-related tests could fail between the moment a ban was created, and the moment it was checked. The problem is it still happens even when you disable the background thread, so my guess is that it's a bug in varnish, not the agent. This issue has already been discussed in the pull request mentioned in comment 6 and upstream is working on it. The relative slowness of the ARM builders emphasizes this issue. For this reason, I have disabled the ban test suite until we (probably upstream) find out what's wrong. -- 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189
--- Comment #12 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Some remarks, full review below:
- The CFLAGS=%{optflags} in %configure CFLAGS=%{optflags} is not necessary,
the %configure macro already includes the CFLAGS, see rpm -E %configure.
- [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
= the patch descriptions could be improved
- Would updating to 2.2.0 RC2 remove some downstream patches?
- Non-applied patches:
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: vagent.secret_privileges.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: vagent.configure.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: vagent.automake.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: vagent.test_suite.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: vagent.disable_ban_tests.patch
Overall, remove the CFLAGS=%{optflags} and look at the non-applied patches
issue, then I'm happy :)
Full review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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:
[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:
BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 10 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sandro/.Data/Desktop/1008189-varnish-agent/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
[Bug 1039315] New: Review Request: Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 Bug ID: 1039315 Summary: Review Request: Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgans...@alice.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Descripition : Nuvola Player runs web interface of cloud music service in its own window and provides integration with a Linux Desktop(system tray, Ubuntu sound menu, dock menu and notifications).Currently supported services are Google Music, Grooveshark, Hype Machine and 8tracks. Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/nuvolaplayer.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm rpmlint output: rpmlint nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nuvola - Nolan nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/nuvolaplayer ../lib/nuvolaplayer/nuvolaplayer.tsocks nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer-client nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/nuvolaplayer.desktop nuvolaplayer 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. rpmlint nuvolaplayer-debuginfo-2.2.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm nuvolaplayer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint nuvolaplayer-2.2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm nuvolaplayer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nuvola - Nolan 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Cloud Music |Review Request: |Integration for your Linux |nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music |Desktop |Integration for your Linux ||Desktop -- 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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #1 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com --- Created attachment 833993 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=833993action=edit spec file diff to fix owned directory and and python version Fixes [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gnome-control-center (control-center-filesystem) -- 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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #2 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
Created attachment 834005
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=834005action=edit
more fixes
I have fixed the broken symlink
http://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/SPECS/nuvolaplayer.spec
I have also excluded %{_libdir}/libnuvolaplayerprivate.so as the name implies
it's private, the app seems to function without it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039293] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-maildir - Single-purpose implementation of maildir-like queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039293 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039296] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface - Public API to JP service internal interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039296 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039293] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-maildir - Single-purpose implementation of maildir-like queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039293
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck:
Apache (v2.0)
-
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-maildir-2.3.9/interface/maildir.h
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-maildir-2.3.9/src/maildir.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/include/glite/lbu(glite-
lbjp-common-db-devel, glite-lbjp-common-trio-devel, glite-lbjp-common-
log-devel), /usr/include/glite(glite-lbjp-common-gss-devel, glite-jobid-
api-c-devel, glite-lb-types, glite-lbjp-common-log-devel, glite-lbjp-
common-db-devel, glite-lbjp-common-trio-devel, glite-px-proxyrenewal-
devel, glite-lb-ws-interface)
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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:
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[Bug 1039296] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface - Public API to JP service internal interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039296 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck: Apache (v2.0) - /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/attr.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/backend.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/builtin_plugins.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/context.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/file_plugin.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/indexdb.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/known_attr.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/type_plugin.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/interface/types.h /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/src/attr.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/src/context.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/src/indexdb.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/src/utils.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/glite-lbjp-common-jp-interface-2.3.9/test/type_test.cpp [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/include/glite(glite-lbjp- common-gss-devel, glite-jobid-api-c-devel, glite-lb-types, glite-lbjp- common-log-devel, glite-lbjp-common-db-devel, glite-lbjp-common-trio- devel, glite-px-proxyrenewal-devel, glite-lb-ws-interface) [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. [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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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
[Bug 1039323] New: Review Request: Weatherman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039323 Bug ID: 1039323 Summary: Review Request: Weatherman Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pp...@myseneca.ca QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3pvkh4iv8r7zd5/weatherman.spec SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~pphan/weatherman/weatherman-1.2.2-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: weatherman displays weather information from weatherbug.com on the command line. It is written entirely in bash and will run on most UNIX/Linux systems. The latest version of weatherman was released on January 12, 2013 with the following changes: Using metric units with extended forecasts works once again Better column alignment when metric units are specified Fixed a rare case where extended forecasts would be displayed incorrectly No longer display units with empty values Removed the program name and project URL from the output Fedora Account System Username: pphan2 -- 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 1039323] Review Request: Weatherman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039323 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to pphan from comment #0) Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3pvkh4iv8r7zd5/weatherman.spec Can you host your spec at http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~pphan/weatherman/ also? We don't like dropbox. SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~pphan/weatherman/weatherman-1.2.2-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: weatherman displays weather information from weatherbug.com on the command line. It is written entirely in bash and will run on most UNIX/Linux systems. The latest version of weatherman was released on January 12, 2013 with the following changes: Using metric units with extended forecasts works once again Better column alignment when metric units are specified Fixed a rare case where extended forecasts would be displayed incorrectly No longer display units with empty values Removed the program name and project URL from the output We don't need changelog as description. Fedora Account System Username: pphan2 We can't find your account so far. 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 1039323] Review Request: Weatherman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039323 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) (In reply to pphan from comment #0) We don't like dropbox. Who is we? Submitters are free to choose whatever hosting service is suiteable to them. -- 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 1039323] Review Request: Weatherman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039323 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #2) (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) (In reply to pphan from comment #0) We don't like dropbox. Who is we? Submitters are free to choose whatever hosting service is suiteable to them. Yes, but that's troublesome for reviewers, fedora-review -b won't work. -- 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
