[Bug 1033413] Review Request: smuxi - An user-friendly IRC client based on GNOME/GTK+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033413 --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Bart Verwilst from comment #11) I wanted to try out the spec file, but it seems it has become a 404 :( Could you please attach the spec file to this report? Thanks! I've re-uploaded the things you desire ;) Current inprogress SPEC generates configuration file for building: Configuration summary for smuxi 0.9 (tarball) * Installation prefix: /usr * Build profile: debug * Compiler:/usr/bin/dmcs * Target CLI runtime: 4.0 * Engines --- Core:(db4o: included) IRC: yes XMPP:yes Twitter: yes Campfire:yes JabbR: yes * Frontends - GNOME: yes (IRC: yes XMPP: yes) + Messaging Menu (indicate: Ubuntu = 12.04, messaging-menu: Ubuntu = 12.04) - indicate:no - messaging-menu: no + Notifications: yes + Spell Checking:yes + D-Bus: yes Ncurses: no STFL:yes SWF (WinForms): no WPF: no Test:yes Summary: 1. Ncurses support hasn't been implemented, so it's unavailable now. 2. SWF/WPF is used for Windows. 3. Messaging Menu is used for Ubuntu, I'm not sure if it deserves a packaging try for Fedora(I think not). And: 1. I still haven't decided how many subpackages should I split out, awaiting answers from Mirco. He was busy ;) 2. Eithor smuxi or smuxi-server has similar warnings during running: Symbol file /usr/lib/smuxi/smuxi-engine-campfire.dll.mdb is not a mono symbol file Symbol file /usr/lib/smuxi/smuxi-engine-jabbr.dll.mdb is not a mono symbol file Ideas are welcome. -- 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- Package approved. But - please make sure that the python-dmlite package is available in the repos where you make the package available so that you don't create broken dependencies. -- 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com --- I will, thank you Mattias. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dmlite-shell Short Description: Shell environment for dmlite Owners: adev Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 el5 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 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #10 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9) Please use this: https://github.com/vim-scripts/gtk-vim-syntax/releases That does not seem like a good idea, as the vim-scripts repository is not up-to-date. Comparing https://github.com/vim-scripts?tab=activity against http://www.vim.org/scripts/ it looks like there is a week or two of updates missing. Based on the open bug reports, it seems like there are quite a few problems with the scraper script used to maintain vim-scripts.org: https://github.com/vim-scraper/vim-scraper/issues As Debian and Gentoo use the vim.org/scripts location, I think it is best to do the same, and have a comment in the spec mentioning the unversioned location upstream. Also add a note at %build like Nothing to build Done. I did a scratch build for Rawhide with that change: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6286862 -- 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 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924 Matthias Runge mru...@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 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/fish
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
= 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 (2 clause), GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or
later), LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 96 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/1041924-fish/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/fish(zeroinstall-
injector), /usr/share/fish/completions(zeroinstall-injector)
[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]: 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.
[-]: 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 583680 bytes in 46 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]: %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 is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
[Bug 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- ah yes, and since we're using RPM, we know where executables live. So there's no need to rely on /usr/bin/env, you should replace /usr/bin/env python calls by their direct replacement. The same applies to /usr/bin/env fish -- 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 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Sigh ... parts of building this package don't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS and pass bogus compiler arguments: ... ... -I/usr/local/include ... g++ function.o builtin.o complete.o env.o exec.o expand.o highlight.o history.o kill.o parser.o proc.o reader.o sanity.o tokenizer.o wildcard.o wgetopt.o wutil.o input.o output.o intern.o env_universal.o env_universal_common.o input_common.o event.o signal.o io.o parse_util.o common.o screen.o path.o autoload.o parser_keywords.o iothread.o color.o postfork.o builtin_test.o fish.o -Wl,-z,relro -L/usr/local/lib/ -lncurses -lpthread -o fish ... 2 to 3 issues with this: * -I/usr/local/include and -L/usr/local/lib/ should not be passed to the compiler for various reasons. * The g++ call above doesn't receive the necessary RPM_OPT_FLAGS. -- 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 1005463] Review Request: rubygem-narray - N-dimensional Numerical Array class for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005463 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-narray-0.6.0.8-9.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-narray-0.6.0.8-9.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 1005463] Review Request: rubygem-narray - N-dimensional Numerical Array class for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005463 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-narray-0.6.0.8-9.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-narray-0.6.0.8-9.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1041435] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.3-api - JavaServer Pages 2.3 API (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041435 --- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review! FSF address issue reported upstream: https://github.com/jboss/jboss-jsp-api_spec/issues/2 Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jsp-2.3-api/2/jboss-jsp-2.3-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jsp-2.3-api/2/jboss-jsp-2.3-api-1.0.0-0.2.Beta1.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6287439 Changelog: - Fixed license tag - Added provides for API - Cleaned up BR - Added ASL 2.0 license -- 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 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Ugh, good catch, Ralf. Thank you for pointing this out. Adny, could you please have a look? -- 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 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924 --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- I mean, Andy, please could you have a look? -- 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 1042809] Review Request: jboss-jacc-1.5-api - JACC 1.5 API (JSR-115)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042809 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG), ||1041430 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041430 [Bug 1041430] wildfly: Upgrade to 8.0.0.Final -- 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 1042809] New: Review Request: jboss-jacc-1.5-api - JACC 1.5 API (JSR-115)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042809 Bug ID: 1042809 Summary: Review Request: jboss-jacc-1.5-api - JACC 1.5 API (JSR-115) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgold...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jacc-1.5-api/1/jboss-jacc-1.5-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jacc-1.5-api/1/jboss-jacc-1.5-api-1.0.0-0.1.Beta1.fc20.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: JSR-000115 Java Authorization Contract for Containers 1.5 API Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6287510 -- 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 1041435] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.3-api - JavaServer Pages 2.3 API (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041435 --- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- After clarifying the guidelines in the #fedora-java channel it seems that comment #1 is wrong and this shouldn't be done in a package that is not the default provider of specific API, I fixed it here: Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jsp-2.3-api/3/jboss-jsp-2.3-api.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-jsp-2.3-api/3/jboss-jsp-2.3-api-1.0.0-0.3.Beta1.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6287513 -- 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165 --- Comment #4 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- (In reply to Adrien Devresse from comment #3) Issues: === - Contains file under BSD license but only ASL 2.0 is signaled A very valid complaint. I had already fixed this locally, but somehow forgot the update the review request. Which of course was entirely my fault. - no ownership defined on /etc/globus Oops. /etc/globus was supposed to be owned by globus-gram-job-manager which this package requires. Somehow that got lost somewhere. I have submitted an update of globus-gram-job-manager that properly owns the /etc/globus directory to rectify this. - Macro could be used in /usr/bin/srun, /usr/bin/sbatch, etc. Thanks - applied. New version: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/globus-gram-job-manager-slurm-1.2-2.fc19.src.rpm http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/globus-gram-job-manager-slurm.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 987738] Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987738 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Yes, EL6 is OK. It should not need the modifications. Waiting for the new version. :-) -- František -- 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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.el5 -- 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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.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 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165
--- Comment #5 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com ---
Ok, Second Review :
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- BSD and ASL 2.0
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
- done
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
- case for /etc/globus, done
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
- shared ownership, perl package.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
- Requirement for EPEL 5
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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]: 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 20480 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
- Requirement for EPEL 5
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag
[Bug 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165 Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036297] Review Request: python-libturpial - library needed to new turpial (twitter client) version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036297 --- Comment #15 from Edwind Richzendy Contreras Soto richze...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://repo.richzendy.org/turpial/python-libturpial.spec RPM URL: http://repo.richzendy.org/turpial/python-libturpial-1.0-6.fc19.noarch.rpm SRPM URL: http://repo.richzendy.org/turpial/python-libturpial-1.0-6.fc19.src.rpm [Richzendy@olivaw SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/Richzendy/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-libturpial-1.0-6.fc19.noarch.rpm python-libturpial.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) turpial - Turpin python-libturpial.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-libturpial-1.0/ChangeLog python-libturpial.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-libturpial-1.0/COPYING python-libturpial.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-libturpial-1.0/AUTHORS 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 1041435] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.3-api - JavaServer Pages 2.3 API (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041435 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- 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 1042809] Review Request: jboss-jacc-1.5-api - JACC 1.5 API (JSR-115)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042809 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 1011962] Review Request: datanucleus-api-jdo - plugin for JDO support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011962 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i ||t) --- Comment #3 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com --- The files in question are available at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ and do contain the ASL 2 license. So what do you propose? I can create the JIRA with datanucleus.org in the interim. Can we substitute the sun.com reference versions in the build? Or patch the existing ones? -- 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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-util-0.2.1-1.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 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Comment #20 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Nice work Denis! -- 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 1011962] Review Request: datanucleus-api-jdo - plugin for JDO support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011962 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i | |t) | --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Pete MacKinnon from comment #3) The files in question are available at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ and do contain the ASL 2 license. So what do you propose? I can create the JIRA with datanucleus.org in the interim. Can we substitute the sun.com reference versions in the build? Or patch the existing ones? if you are sure of the ASL license, fine by me. otherwise ask the developers a clarification -- 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 1011962] Review Request: datanucleus-api-jdo - plugin for JDO support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011962 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- Many thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm Short Description: Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support Owners: ellert Branches: f18 f19 f20 el5 el6 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 1042809] Review Request: jboss-jacc-1.5-api - JACC 1.5 API (JSR-115)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042809
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[!]: 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), Unknown or generated. 12 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1042809-jboss-
jacc-1.5-api/licensecheck.txt
LGPL (v2.1 or later):
src/test/java/org/jboss/test/jacc/implies/WebResourcePermissionImpliesTestCase.java
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
[Bug 1042809] Review Request: jboss-jacc-1.5-api - JACC 1.5 API (JSR-115)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042809 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- ISSUES: [!]: 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), Unknown or generated. 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1042809-jboss- jacc-1.5-api/licensecheck.txt LGPL (v2.1 or later): src/test/java/org/jboss/test/jacc/implies/WebResourcePermissionImpliesTestCase.java [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. license field should be: (CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions) or LGPLv2+ jboss-jacc-1.5-api.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jboss-jacc-1.5-api/LICENSE jboss-jacc-1.5-api-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jboss-jacc-1.5-api-javadoc/LICENSE see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address -- 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i ||t) --- Comment #3 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com --- Gil, anything else required for 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i | |t) | --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Sorry! -- 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dmlite-shell-0.2.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dmlite-shell-0.2.1-2.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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dmlite-shell-0.2.1-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dmlite-shell-0.2.1-2.el5 -- 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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-12-13 10:57:20 -- 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 1027383] Review Request: gfal2-util - GFAL2 utility tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027383 Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 1027288] Review Request: dmlite-shell - Shell environment for dmlite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027288 Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-12-13 10:58:28 -- 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: datanucleus-rdbms Short Description: DataNucleus plugin for persistence to RDBMS data-stores Owners: pmackinn Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 1042995] New: Review Request: marco - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042995 Bug ID: 1042995 Summary: Review Request: marco - MATE Desktop window manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chat-to...@raveit.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SPECS/marco.spec SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SRPM/marco-1.7.0-0.3.git0403454e.fc21.src.rpm Description: MATE Desktop window manager Fedora Account System Username: raveit65 -- 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 1042995] Review Request: marco - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042995 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- This is a re-review request for a package rename. Old packackage name is mate-window-manager. Note, this affect only rawhide, f18/19/20 will use mate-window-manager-1.6.x until there EOL. -- 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 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Done, clearing flag. There was an error, please submit a Package Change request for the f20 branch. -- 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 913289] Review Request: gimp-separate+ - A plug-in providing rudimentary CMYK support for The GIMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289 --- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Package Change Request == Package Name: datanucleus-rdbms New Branches: f20 Owners: pmackinn InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: datanucleus-rdbms Short Description: DataNucleus plugin for persistence to RDBMS data-stores Owners: pmackinn Branches: master InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 1021160] Review Request: doge - wow very terminal doge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021160 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- doge-2.2.0-1.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 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924 --- Comment #7 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- I filed an upstream bug about the FSF address. The /usr/local/include thing is https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/1185 Re: the g++ call to link the executables: does it matter for linking? In any case, I patched it. For /usr/bin/env python: There are four Python scripts. One is not installed and AFAICT unused (AFAICT) and the other three are explicitly bilingual, so I switched them to /usr/bin/python3 instead of /usr/bin/python. rpm now finds the dependency on /usr/bin/python3, so I dropped Requires: python. I've tested all three scripts for basic functionality under Python 3. In the process of doing this, I found a test suite. It's in %check now. Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v5/fish.spech SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/fish_rpm_v5/fish-2.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6288850 -- 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Please place the Change after the new New Package request so our tool can see 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1042995] Review Request: marco - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042995
leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
Approved
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the [ ] Manual check required, you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
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]: 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:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later),
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 10 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/leigh/1042995-marco/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/mate-control-center, /usr/share/mate-
control-center/keybindings, /usr/share/mate
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help, /usr/share/mate-
control-center/keybindings, /usr/share/mate, /usr/share/mate-control-
center, /usr/share/help/C
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has
*.gschema.xml files.
Note: gschema file(s) in marco
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each
[Bug 1038773] Review Request: caja - File manager for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038773 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leigh123li...@googlemail.co ||m Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com --- Approved This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the [ ] Manual check required, you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text 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]: 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: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later), *No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later), LGPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/leigh/1038773-caja/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas, /usr/share/glib-2.0 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in caja-schemas [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in caja [ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in caja [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 71680 bytes in 6 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for
[Bug 1042995] Review Request: marco - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042995 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: marco Short Description: MATE Desktop window manager Owners: raveit65 vicodan Branches: InitialCC: Note: branch is empty because other branches than rawhide will use old package name until releases are EOL. -- 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 1038773] Review Request: caja - File manager for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038773 --- Comment #7 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: caja Short Description: File manager for MATE desktop Owners: raveit65 vicodan Branches: InitialCC: Note: branch is empty because other branches than rawhide will use old package name until releases are EOL. -- 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: datanucleus-rdbms New Branches: master Owners: pmackinn InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). I replaced master with 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 1011960] Review Request: datanucleus-rdbms - plugin for RDBMS storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011960 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1042995] Review Request: marco - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042995 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1042995] Review Request: marco - MATE Desktop window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1042995 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.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 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) DEBUG: Exception down the road... https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/233 But you're right, the -debuginfo package was borked. v3: do not strip binaries during installation Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131020-4.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 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.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 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.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 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.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 861502] Review Request: metrics - Java library which gives you what your code does in production
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861502 Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rr...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com --- metrics 3.0.1 won't compile on jetty 9.1.0, which is the current version in rawhide. When I checked I didn't see a newer release of metrics. -- 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 1041924] Review Request: fish - Friendly Interactive Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041924 --- Comment #8 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- Just for the record: - The missing CXXFLAGS issue is fixed in upstream master. - Fedora 19 will suffer from https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/1065. I can patch it later or just wait for a new version (it's also fixes upstream). Fedora 20+ will be unaffected. - Upstream doesn't seem to care about the FSF's address: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/1184 - I should probably remove --without-xsel at some point. It's no longer necessary, and it has no effect. (Fish will detect xsel at runtime to enable clipboard functionality, as described in the docs.) -- 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 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- OK, so fedora-review still doesn't work... because repoquery doesn't work. % repoquery -l filesystem failure: repodata/19cc80190af9badcf16e981479891dc2dc96e5f7d8316e9413c71d2075c1bcd9-filelists.sqlite.bz2 from fedora: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. http://download-i2.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/20/x86_64/os/repodata/19cc80190af9badcf16e981479891dc2dc96e5f7d8316e9413c71d2075c1bcd9-filelists.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found http://mirrors.nebo.edu/public/fedora/linux/development/20/x86_64/os/repodata/19cc80190af9badcf16e981479891dc2dc96e5f7d8316e9413c71d2075c1bcd9-filelists.sqlite.bz2: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found ... But fedora-review works fine on F19. Tarred directory from fedora review is at http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/1036462-unifont.tar.xz if you don't have F19 at hand. -- 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 683591] Review Request: tclap - Templatized Command Line Argument Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683591 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1001296 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001296 [Bug 1001296] tclap : duplicate documentation files / potentially conflicting -- 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 861502] Review Request: metrics - Java library which gives you what your code does in production
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861502 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Robert Rati from comment #3) metrics 3.0.1 won't compile on jetty 9.1.0, which is the current version in rawhide. When I checked I didn't see a newer release of metrics. build.log? is available? -- 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 1040027] Review Request: double-conversion - Library providing binary-decimal and decimal-binary routines for IEEE doubles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040027
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Minor note - go ahead and pass CXXFLAGS to scons in %check.
- Drop rm -rf %{_buildroot} in %install, not needed
- You generally want to use %global instead of %define, but this also would
work:
scons \
%if %{with static_libs}
install \
%else
install-shared \
%endif
CXXFLAGS=%{optflags} \
libsuffix=%{_lib} \
prefix=%{_prefix} \
DESTDIR=%{buildroot} \
VERSION=%{version}
- You are not actually running any tests in %check, this fixes:
%check
scons run_tests
./run_tests --list | tr -d '' | xargs ./run_tests
= 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:
BSD (3 clause), Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/double-
conversion-2.0.0/1040027-double-conversion/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.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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.
[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 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]:
[Bug 1040027] Review Request: double-conversion - Library providing binary-decimal and decimal-binary routines for IEEE doubles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040027 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- I've now sponsored you, welcome aboard. Please ask me if you have any packaging questions. 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 1033413] Review Request: smuxi - An user-friendly IRC client based on GNOME/GTK+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033413 --- Comment #13 from Mirco Bauer mmmba...@gnome.org --- Configure summary looks good to me and I agree to 1) 2) 3) of it. For the package split I suggest to follow the upstream and downstream packaging I do in Debian: * smuxi-engine: smuxi-engine* libraries, smuxi-server.exe and all other private libraries (SmartIrcr4net, Twitterizer, ServiceStack, etc) * smuxi-frontend-gnome: smuxi-frontend-gnome* * smuxi-frontend-stfl: smuxi-frontend-stfl This the smallest possible split that still allows to install a) server-only without X11/GUI dependencies, b) just the GNOME frontend c) just the console frontend -- 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 1033413] Review Request: smuxi - An user-friendly IRC client based on GNOME/GTK+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033413 --- Comment #14 from Mirco Bauer mmmba...@gnome.org --- Oh and the .mdb warnings are a bug in the Smuxi build system, but are harmless and can be ignored/skipped from the packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|google-phetsarath-fonts-1.0 |google-phetsarath-fonts-1.0 |1-1.fc19|1-1.fc20 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- google-phetsarath-fonts-1.01-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 1028481] Review Request: libtsm - Terminal-emulator State Machine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028481 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libtsm-3-1.fc19 |libtsm-3-1.fc20 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libtsm-3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 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 Fixed In Version|docker-io-0.7.0-14.fc19 |docker-io-0.7.0-14.fc20 --- Comment #71 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-io-0.7.0-14.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 999366] Review Request: se-sandbox-runner -- Qt wrapper for SELinux Sandbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999366 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.f |se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.f |c19 |c20 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- se-sandbox-runner-1.3.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 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 Fixed In Version|python-chai-0.4.5-1.fc19|python-chai-0.4.5-1.fc20 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-chai-0.4.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 840551] Review Request: sugar-kuku - arithmetic education game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sugar-kuku-5-0.fc19 |sugar-kuku-5-0.fc20 --- Comment #72 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-kuku-5-0.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1025369] Review Request: bugwarrior - Sync github, bitbucket, and trac issues with taskwarrior
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025369 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- bugwarrior-0.6.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 1005796] Review Request: langdetect - Language Detection Library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005796 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||langdetect-1.1-0.2.20120112 ||.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-13 21:54:47 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- langdetect-1.1-0.2.20120112.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 1027407] Review Request: rubygem-thinking-sphinx - A smart wrapper over Sphinx for ActiveRecord
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027407 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-thinking-sphinx-3.0 |rubygem-thinking-sphinx-3.0 |.6-2.fc19 |.6-2.fc20 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-thinking-sphinx-3.0.6-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 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 Fixed In Version|php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.fc1 |php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.fc2 |9 |0 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-symfony-icu-1.2.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 Fixed In Version|rubygem-vegas-0.1.11-1.fc19 |rubygem-vegas-0.1.11-1.fc20 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-vegas-0.1.11-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-blosc-1.1-7.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-13 21:57:42 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-blosc-1.1-7.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 967337] Review Request: rubygem-faraday - HTTP/REST API client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967337 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-faraday-0.8.8-2.fc1 |rubygem-faraday-0.8.8-2.fc2 |9 |0 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-faraday-0.8.8-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable 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 1005904] Review Request: restlet-jse - Open Source Lightweight REST framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005904 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||restlet-jse-2.1.4-2.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-13 21:59:35 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- restlet-jse-2.1.4-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 1025904] Review Request: solr - Ultra-fast Lucene-based Search Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025904 Bug 1025904 depends on bug 1005904, which changed state. Bug 1005904 Summary: Review Request: restlet-jse - Open Source Lightweight REST framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005904 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1027513] Review Request: rubygem-axiom-types - Abstract types for logic programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027513 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-axiom-types-0.0.5-2 |rubygem-axiom-types-0.0.5-2 |.fc19 |.fc20 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-axiom-types-0.0.5-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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
