[Bug 1043157] Review Request: gnome-kra-ora-thumbnailer - Thumbnailer for Krita and MyPaint images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1043157 --- Comment #4 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-kra-ora-thumbnailer Short Description: Thumbnailer for Krita and MyPaint images Owners: yaneti hadess Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036755] Review Request: python-httpretty - HTTP client mock for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036755 Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- I'll do the review. It wasn't on my todo list, but on my this looks interesting list :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1044929] Review Request: perl-Date-Extract - Date::Extract Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044929 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Thanks for the review, Parag. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Date-Extract Short Description: Date::Extract Perl module Owners: corsepiu Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: perl-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 1045826] New: Review Request: perl-Image-Dot - Create 1x1 pixel image files in pure perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045826 Bug ID: 1045826 Summary: Review Request: perl-Image-Dot - Create 1x1 pixel image files in pure perl Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: yan...@declera.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/perl-Image-Dot/perl-Image-Dot.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/perl-Image-Dot/perl-Image-Dot-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This package provides 1x1 pixel PNG images of a certain RGB color (also with transparency) without relying on any external modules like GD, libpng or Compress::Zlib. These pixel dots can be useful in a pure-perl HTTP server to be able to create colored dots on-the-fly, e.g. for formatting or drawing purposes. Fedora Account System Username: yaneti -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036755] Review Request: python-httpretty - HTTP client mock for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036755
--- Comment #5 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com ---
First review:
- http://falcao.it/HTTPretty/ seems more appropriate for the URL tag
- upstream latest version is 0.7.1 and contains the tests/ directory
- have you filed an issue related to your patch upstream ?
- have you checked whether autoreq finds the dependencies ?
- readability: maybe add a blank line before each %if 0%{?with_python3}
- have you opened an issue upstream to make the test suite deterministic ?
sounds like a temporary fix to run the tests until they all succeed
- you should maybe ask upstream to put the COPYING file in the source tarball
- you can replace /usr/bin/nosetests-3* with nosetests-%{python3_version}
or /usr/bin should at least be replaced by %{_bindir}
f-r shows other packaging issues below.
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.
[?]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1036755-python-httpretty/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: python-httpretty (description), python3-httpretty
(description)
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
[Bug 1036130] New package postgresql-plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 --- Comment #12 from Zoltan Boszormenyi zbos...@pr.hu --- My 2 cents: postgresql-plparrot and postgresql-plruby are also not official, they are not part of the postgresql sources and are Fedora packages. plv8 would be also confusing on the first sight, like, does it have anything to do with the pl (SWI Prolog) package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Any news here? Version 5.0.14 of libtubo has been released a few days ago, maybe it solves the compiling problems. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031531] Review Request: ghc-scotty - Haskell web framework inspired by Ruby's Sinatra, using WAI and Warp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031531 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-scotty-0.5.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-scotty-0.5.0-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031531] Review Request: ghc-scotty - Haskell web framework inspired by Ruby's Sinatra, using WAI and Warp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031531 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1040767] Review Request: rubygem-net-irc - Library for implementing IRC server and client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040767 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #2) - Please filter /usr/bin/env from Requires (see rubygem-net-irc-doc). I will keep this, as scripts in -doc package actually depends on this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045863] New: Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 Bug ID: 1045863 Summary: Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ger...@ryan.lt QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/tesla-filelock/0.0.2/tesla-filelock.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/tesla-filelock/0.0.2/tesla-filelock-0.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Tesla filelock utilities Fedora Account System Username: galileo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) --- Comment #1 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- This will be an indirect dependency for eclipse-m2e-core 1.5 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045865] New: Review Request: okhttp - An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045865 Bug ID: 1045865 Summary: Review Request: okhttp - An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ger...@ryan.lt QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/okhttp/1.2.1/okhttp.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/okhttp/1.2.1/okhttp-1.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications Fedora Account System Username: galileo This will be a dependency for eclipse-m2e-core 1.5. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6325770 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045865] Review Request: okhttp - An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045865 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 --- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6325766 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.el6 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #54 from Pablo Rodríguez fed...@pragmata.tk --- Nicolas, as Steven wrote three months ago, is there any update on this? It is a really useful extension that I like to use with Fedora 20. Thanks for your excellent work, Pablo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045865] Review Request: okhttp - An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045865 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 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 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 1045865] Review Request: okhttp - An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045865
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 7 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1045865-okhttp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/okhttp
[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 51200 bytes in 5 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 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]: If tests are skipped during package build explain why it was needed in a
comment
Note: Tests seem to be skipped. Verify there is a commment giving a
reason for this
[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
[Bug 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863
--- Comment #3 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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/1045863-tesla-filelock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to 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]: 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:
[!]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tesla-
filelock-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]:
[Bug 1025972] Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972 --- Comment #7 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt --- (In reply to Thomas Spura from comment #6) (In reply to Jose Pedro Oliveira from comment #1) Additional notes: * this package is a new requirement of ZeroMQ 4 (and CZMQ 2). * target distros: Fedora = 18 and EPEL6 * additional maintainers are welcome Are you already working on zeromq4? The tests fail for me in rpmbuild, but all is fine, when running locally... Thomas, Yes but still needs work. I've just opened a tracking ticket for the update: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045884 jpo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 --- Comment #4 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- Thanks for the review Gil, it's much appreciated! (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) ISSUES: [!]: 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. [!]: 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. Regarding the first and third issues, I think EPL-licensed packages must include license file, is that correct? If not, I'll take it out. Regarding the second issue, I've just queried upstream to include license text in the following pull request on github: https://github.com/tesla/tesla-filelock/pull/1 Let me know if there's anything else you would like me to do to get this through review. Thanks again! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045865] Review Request: okhttp - An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045865 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: okhttp Short Description: An HTTP+SPDY client for Java applications Owners: galileo 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 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- approved happy holydays! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 --- Comment #6 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5) approved happy holydays! Great, thanks again Gil! Happy holidays to you too! :) I'll have a look over the next few days at what you've got for review...I owe you a few by now and I've got some free time now over the break. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045863] Review Request: tesla-filelock - Tesla filelock utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045863 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tesla-filelock Short Description: Tesla filelock utilities Owners: galileo 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 829892] Review Request: python27 - Parallel-installable Python 2.7 for EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829892 --- Comment #13 from Mark McKinstry mmcki...@umich.edu --- Bjorn, I'm still working on this. It built fine in mock but is failing in koji for some reason. The weird part is the RPM that built before isn't building now and is failing in the test_gdb tests, complaining about /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045963] Review Request: ghc-gtk3 - Binding to the Gtk+ graphical user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045963 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6327227 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045963] New: Review Request: ghc-gtk3 - Binding to the Gtk+ graphical user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045963 Bug ID: 1045963 Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtk3 - Binding to the Gtk+ graphical user interface library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-gtk3.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-gtk3-0.12.5.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is the core library of the Gtk2Hs suite of libraries for Haskell based on Gtk+. Gtk+ is an extensive and mature multi-platform toolkit for creating graphical user interfaces. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.el6 |gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc1 ||9 --- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||globus-gram-job-manager-slu ||rm-1.2-2.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-22 22:41:38 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- globus-gram-job-manager-slurm-1.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036754] Review Request: ttembed - Remove embedding limitations from TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036754 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ttembed-1.1-1.fc19 |ttembed-1.1-1.fc20 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ttembed-1.1-1.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 1028165] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-slurm - Globus Toolkit - SLURM Job Manager Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028165 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|globus-gram-job-manager-slu |globus-gram-job-manager-slu |rm-1.2-2.fc19 |rm-1.2-2.fc20 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- globus-gram-job-manager-slurm-1.2-2.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 1005522] Review Request: ghc-mtl - Monad classes using functional dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005522 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||haskell-platform-2013.2.0.0 ||-27.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-22 22:43:35 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- haskell-platform-2013.2.0.0-27.fc20, ghc-mtl-2.1.2-27.fc20, ghc-zlib-0.5.4.1-27.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 1023706] Review Request: ghc-zlib - Compression and decompression in the gzip and zlib formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023706 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||haskell-platform-2013.2.0.0 ||-27.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-22 22:43:42 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- haskell-platform-2013.2.0.0-27.fc20, ghc-mtl-2.1.2-27.fc20, ghc-zlib-0.5.4.1-27.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 on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|globus-gram-job-manager-slu |globus-gram-job-manager-slu |rm-1.2-2.fc20 |rm-1.2-2.fc18 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- globus-gram-job-manager-slurm-1.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913289] Review Request: gimp-separate+ - A plug-in providing rudimentary CMYK support for The GIMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc1 |gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc2 |9 |0 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.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 982204] Review Request: Elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 Bug 982204 depends on bug 1023605, which changed state. Bug 1023605 Summary: Review Request: ghc-language-ecmascript - JavaScript parser and pretty-printer library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023605 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1023605] Review Request: ghc-language-ecmascript - JavaScript parser and pretty-printer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023605 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-language-ecmascript-0.1 ||5.2-2.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-22 22:46:46 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-language-ecmascript-0.15.2-2.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 1023605] Review Request: ghc-language-ecmascript - JavaScript parser and pretty-printer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023605 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-language-ecmascript-0.1 |ghc-language-ecmascript-0.1 |5.2-2.fc20 |5.2-2.fc19 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-language-ecmascript-0.15.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc20|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913289] Review Request: gimp-separate+ - A plug-in providing rudimentary CMYK support for The GIMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc2 |gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc1 |0 |8 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gimp-separate+-0.5.8-10.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 1031531] Review Request: ghc-scotty - Haskell web framework inspired by Ruby's Sinatra, using WAI and Warp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031531 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-scotty-0.5.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1021719] Review Request: opensmtpd - Minimalistic but powerful smtp server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021719 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc19|opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opensmtpd-5.4.1p1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045963] Review Request: ghc-gtk3 - Binding to the Gtk+ graphical user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045963 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Whiteboard||Ready --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Note this package will only build currently in F21 Rawhide since it needs the gtk2hs 0.12.5 stack to build (I plan to backport them sooner or later to 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
