[Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462
--- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or
later). Detailed output of licensecheck:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unigencircles.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unigenwidth.c
GPL (v2 or later)
-
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unibdf2hex.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unibmp2hex.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unicoverage.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unidup.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unifontpic.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unihex2bmp.c
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unihexgen.c
GPL (v3 or later)
-
unifont-6.3.20131221/src/unipagecount.c
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts,
/usr/share/doc/unifont
--- First one aybe a filesystem bug? Second one is an issue.
[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.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
--- Caused by font_pkg, may request a bug report later if you can.
[-]: 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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in unifont
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 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 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
[Bug 1023879] Review Request: php-solarium - Solarium PHP Solr client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023879 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- = MUST items = [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed = SHOULD items = [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed php-pear(pear.symfony.com/EventDispatcher) = php-symfony-eventdispatcher Issues fixed. No blockers. = 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 1023879] Review Request: php-solarium - Solarium PHP Solr client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023879 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks again ! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-solarium Short Description: Solarium PHP Solr client library Owners: remi Branches: f19 f20 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 807476] Review Request:ima-evm-utils -IMA/EVM support utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807476 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Please package 0.6 when you are free. -- 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 832698] Review Request: CERT Triage tools - a gdb extension similar to microsoft's !exploitable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Please package 1.04 when you are free. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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 1047013] New: Review Request: eom - Eye of MATE image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047013 Bug ID: 1047013 Summary: Review Request: eom - Eye of MATE image viewer 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/eom.spec SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SRPM/eom-1.7.0-0.1.git20131212.7ba7e03.fc21.src.rpm Description: The Eye of MATE (eom) is the official image viewer for the MATE desktop. It can view single image files in a variety of formats, as well as large image collections. Eye of Mate is extensible through a plugin system. 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 1046726] Review Request: pluma - Text editor for the MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046726 --- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- (In reply to Wolfgang Ulbrich from comment #1) This is a re-review request for a package rename. Old packackage name is mate-image-viewer. Note, this affect only rawhide, f18/19/20 will use mate-image-viewer-1.6.x until there EOL. Sorry wrong, This is a re-review request for a package rename. Old packackage name is mate-text-editor. Note, this affect only rawhide, f18/19/20 will use mate-text-editor-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 1047013] Review Request: eom - Eye of MATE image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047013 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- This is a re-review request for a package rename. Old packackage name is mate-image-viewer. Note, this affect only rawhide, f18/19/20 will use mate-image-viewer-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 1047014] New: Review Request: python-blockdiag - blockdiag generates block-diagram image from text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047014 Bug ID: 1047014 Summary: Review Request: python-blockdiag - blockdiag generates block-diagram image from text Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/python-blockdiag.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/python-blockdiag-1.3.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: blockdiag and its family generate diagram images from simply text file. Features: - Generates beautiful diagram images from simple text format (similar to graphviz’s DOT format) - Layouts diagram elements automatically - Embeds to many documentations; Sphinx, Trac, Redmine and some wikis - Supports many types of diagrams - block diagram (with this package) - sequence diagram (with the seqdiag package) - activity diagram (with the actdiag package) - logical network diagram (with the nwdiag package) Enjoy documentation with blockdiag ! Fedora Account System Username: dridi Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6338458 -- 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 1047014] Review Request: python-blockdiag - blockdiag generates block-diagram image from text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047014 Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-blockdiag -- 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 1047013] Review Request: eom - Eye of MATE image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047013 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1047015 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047015 [Bug 1047015] Latest build use an unreleased tarball -- 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 1045141] Review Request: python-jsonpath-rw - extended implementation of JSONPath for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045141 Patrick Laimbock patr...@laimbock.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||patr...@laimbock.com --- Comment #5 from Patrick Laimbock patr...@laimbock.com --- Christopher: about your remark number 5 in #c4: According to 'rawhide report: 20131228 changes' OpenStack Ceilometer needs python-jsonpath-rw and OpenStack Ceilometer is also built for EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=15819 So python-jsonpath-rw is needed for EPEL6. -- 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 #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Thank you for the review. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #13) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts, /usr/share/doc/unifont Fixed both. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed --- Caused by font_pkg, may request a bug report later if you can. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047031 Rpmlint --- Checking: unifont-6.3.20131221-1.fc21.i686.rpm unifont-fonts-6.3.20131221-1.fc21.noarch.rpm unifont-6.3.20131221-1.fc21.src.rpm unifont.i686: W: name-repeated-in-summary C unifont unifont-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs - glyph, glyph s unifont.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C unifont 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. unifont.i686: W: name-repeated-in-summary C unifont 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' I changed the summaries and descriptions to be more verbose. Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131221-2.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 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- I also filed https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?41020. -- 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 879839] Review Request: libchipcard - enable DDV chipcards for HBIC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879839 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Lemm thomas.l...@gmx.de --- Hi, I found the 5.0.3 beta and put it into an rpm (for fedora 19): https://sites.google.com/site/kontr0kontradiktion/packages/libchipcard-for-fedora-17 However I don't have a 64bit environment to roll the 64bit rpms on. Kind regards Thomas -- 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 1047013] Review Request: eom - Eye of MATE image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047013 Bug 1047013 depends on bug 1047015, which changed state. Bug 1047015 Summary: Latest build use an unreleased tarball https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047015 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1026052] Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to process github markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052 --- Comment #8 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Upon closer inspection of the license text in the source code, I think the license is actually ISC versus MIT. That will need to be reflected in the spec file. https://github.com/Affix/RPMs/pull/1 -- 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 1015958] Review Request: fst - run VST plugins under wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015958 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lv2-triceratops-0.1.7-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lv2-triceratops-0.1.7-1.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 1015958] Review Request: fst - run VST plugins under wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015958 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lv2-triceratops-0.1.7-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lv2-triceratops-0.1.7-1.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 1047014] Review Request: python-blockdiag - blockdiag generates block-diagram image from text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047014 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023474] Review Request: efivar - utility and library for manipulating efi variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023474 Frank Ansari m...@frank-ansari.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@frank-ansari.de --- Comment #10 from Frank Ansari m...@frank-ansari.de --- I have downloaded the 0.7 sources and make a test on my Feodra 20 system. The tool gives this error: efivar: poprReadDefaultConfig failed: No such file or directory (I guess it should be poptReadDefaultConfig?) I found it starts working as soon as I create an empty file in /etc/popt.d: touch /etc/popt.d/popt When I now run efivar -l I get the paramter list but printing any parameter fails. Example: [root@bat ~]# efivar -p -n 8be4df61-93ca-11d2-aa0d-00e098032b8c-Boot efivar: invalid name 8be4df61-93ca-11d2-aa0d-00e098032b8c-Boot -- 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 1047062] New: Review Request: modem-manager-gui - Graphical interface for ModemManager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047062 Bug ID: 1047062 Summary: Review Request: modem-manager-gui - Graphical interface for ModemManager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/modem-manager-gui.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/modem-manager-gui-0.0.16-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: This program is simple graphical interface for Modem Manager daemon dbus interface. Current features: - View device information: Operator name, Mode, IMEI, IMSI, Signal level. - Send and receive SMS messages with long massages concatenation and store messages in database. - Send USSD requests and read answers in GSM7 and UCS2 formats converted to system UTF8 charset. - Scan available mobile networks. Fedora Account System Username: mariobl This tool works fine so far, but produces a SELinux message. See bug #1047021. -- 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 1047062] Review Request: modem-manager-gui - Graphical interface for ModemManager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047062 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1047021 Alias||modem-manager-gui Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047021 [Bug 1047021] SELinux is preventing /usr/sbin/ModemManager from 'read' accesses on the chr_file urandom. -- 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 1001799] Review Request: kbarcode - A barcode and label printing application for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001799 --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- Regarding the postscriptbarcode implementation, maybe I could a subpackage named postscriptbarcode-kbarcode which creates a symlink from the postscript file to the appropriate folder in kbarcode. To make it work, I have to remove the bundled file from kbarcode after installation. Kbarcode will also work without the file, but it would be better to require postscriptbarcode anyway. -- 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 1047070] New: Review Request: rubygem-literati - Render literate Haskell with Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047070 Bug ID: 1047070 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-literati - Render literate Haskell with Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ktdre...@ktdreyer.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-literati.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-literati-0.0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Render literate Haskell with Ruby for great good. Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6339249 -- 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 1002166] Review Request: junit-benchmarks - Code benchmarking in JUnit4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002166 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ger...@ryan.lt Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ger...@ryan.lt 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 1002166] Review Request: junit-benchmarks - Code benchmarking in JUnit4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002166
Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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. 55 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/grdryn/1002166-junit-
benchmarks/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: 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]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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)
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 DO 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).
[x]:
[Bug 1002166] Review Request: junit-benchmarks - Code benchmarking in JUnit4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002166 --- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- I'm not sure if the new Github releases feature makes it unnecessary (not sure how it works), but consider using the full commit hash to refer to the sources, as advised here, for immutability and uniqueness: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github -- 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 1002165] Review Request: hppc - High Performance Primitive Collections for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002165 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ger...@ryan.lt Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ger...@ryan.lt Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002165] Review Request: hppc - High Performance Primitive Collections for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002165 --- Comment #3 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- Other Notes: - hppc-templateprocessor probably should be a subpackage, right? - pom_xpath_remove and pom_xpath_inject for ant-trax and ant-nodeps would be cleaner as pom_remove_dep and pom_add_dep -- 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 1002165] Review Request: hppc - High Performance Primitive Collections for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002165
Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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:
Unknown or generated, *No copyright* Apache (v2.0). 100 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/grdryn/1002165-hppc/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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]: 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]: 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]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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)
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 DO 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).
[x]: Fully versioned
[Bug 912816] Review Request: kyua-testers - Scriptable tester interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912816 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||kyua-testers-0.2-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-28 18:37:44 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- kyua-testers-0.2-1.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 861502] Review Request: metrics - Java library which gives you what your code does in production
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861502 Bug 861502 depends on bug 991624, which changed state. Bug 991624 Summary: Review Request: gmetric4j - JVM instrumentation to Ganglia https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991624 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 991624] Review Request: gmetric4j - JVM instrumentation to Ganglia
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991624 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gmetric4j-1.0.3-2.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-28 18:39:30 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gmetric4j-1.0.3-2.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 1036836] Review Request: rubygem-inflecto - Inflector for strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036836 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-inflecto-0.0.2-1.fc ||19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-28 18:39:07 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-inflecto-0.0.2-1.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 1036836] Review Request: rubygem-inflecto - Inflector for strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036836 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rubygem-inflecto-0.0.2-1.fc |rubygem-inflecto-0.0.2-1.fc |19 |20 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-inflecto-0.0.2-1.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 1047094] New: Review Request: tesla-concurrent-localrepo - Tesla : Concurrent Local Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047094 Bug ID: 1047094 Summary: Review Request: tesla-concurrent-localrepo - Tesla : Concurrent Local Repository 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-concurrent-localrepo/0.0.3-1/tesla-concurrent-localrepo.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/tesla-concurrent-localrepo/0.0.3-1/tesla-concurrent-localrepo-0.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tesla : Concurrent Local Repository Fedora Account System Username: galileo Upstream queried to include license here: https://github.com/tesla/tesla-concurrent-localrepo/pull/2 Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6339500 This package will be a dependency for eclipse-m2e-core 1.5.x -- 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 1047094] Review Request: tesla-concurrent-localrepo - Tesla : Concurrent Local Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047094 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 1020292] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 1002165] Review Request: hppc - High Performance Primitive Collections for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002165
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
(In reply to Gerard Ryan from comment #3)
Other Notes:
- hppc-templateprocessor probably should be a subpackage, right?
Not really necessary. Done
- pom_xpath_remove and pom_xpath_inject for ant-trax and ant-nodeps
would be cleaner as pom_remove_dep and pom_add_dep
in my F19 system dont work with pom_remove_dep and pom_add_dep
plugin
groupIdorg.apache.maven.plugins/groupId
artifactIdmaven-antrun-plugin/artifactId
version1.7/version
inheritedtrue/inherited
dependencies
dependency
groupIdorg.apache.ant/groupId
artifactIdant-nodeps/artifactId
version1.8.0/version
/dependency
dependency
groupIdorg.apache.ant/groupId
artifactIdant-trax/artifactId
version1.8.0/version
/dependency
dependency
groupIdorg.apache.ant/groupId
artifactIdant-junit/artifactId
version1.8.0/version
/dependency
dependency
groupIdsun.jdk/groupId
artifactIdtools/artifactId
version1.6.0/version
scopesystem/scope
systemPath${java.home}/../lib/tools.jar/systemPath
/dependency
/dependencies
/plugin
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hppc.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hppc-0.5.3-2.fc19.src.rpm
- add templateprocessor sub-package
--
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 1002166] Review Request: junit-benchmarks - Code benchmarking in JUnit4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002166 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Gerard Ryan from comment #2) I'm not sure if the new Github releases feature makes it unnecessary (not sure how it works), but consider using the full commit hash to refer to the sources, as advised here, for immutability and uniqueness: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github These advices should be used for those repository which don't used newer Git(hub) features. For immutability and uniqueness of the source archive, should be more than enough to use the available archives in https://github.com/carrotsearch/junit-benchmarks/releases or https://github.com/$OWNER/$PROJECT/releases (instead of https://github.com/$OWNER/$PROJECT/tags) -- 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 1002170] Review Request: morfologik-stemming - Morfologik stemming library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002170 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/morfologik-stemming.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/morfologik-stemming-1.8.2-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 1.8.2 -- 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 797330] Review request: xsensors - An X11 interface to lm_sensors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797330 Jeremy Newton alexjn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #15 from Jeremy Newton alexjn...@gmail.com --- I need someone to review this. I set the review flag to ?. Please fix this if it's the incorrect to put for this. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1047094] Review Request: tesla-concurrent-localrepo - Tesla : Concurrent Local Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047094 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 1047094] Review Request: tesla-concurrent-localrepo - Tesla : Concurrent Local Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047094
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.
[?]: 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. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/1047094-tesla-concurrent-
localrepo/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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from
[Bug 1047109] New: Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 Bug ID: 1047109 Summary: Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shawn.iwin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/siwinski/rpms/1ec41e8e5728d432aacacd7eabbf75dcede2c271/php-doctrine-common.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-doctrine-common-2.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The Doctrine Common project is a library that provides extensions to core PHP functionality. Fedora Account System Username: siwinski *** NOTE: Rename/repackage because upstream dropped PEAR packaging as of version 2.4.0 -- 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 1047111] New: Review Request: php-doctrine-orm - Doctrine Object-Relational-Mapper (ORM)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047111 Bug ID: 1047111 Summary: Review Request: php-doctrine-orm - Doctrine Object-Relational-Mapper (ORM) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shawn.iwin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/siwinski/rpms/1ec41e8e5728d432aacacd7eabbf75dcede2c271/php-doctrine-orm.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-doctrine-orm-2.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Object relational mapper (ORM) for PHP that sits on top of a powerful database abstraction layer (DBAL). One of its' key features is the option to write database queries in a proprietary object oriented SQL dialect called Doctrine Query Language (DQL), inspired by Hibernate's HQL. This provides developers with a powerful alternative to SQL that maintains flexibility without requiring unnecessary code duplication. Fedora Account System Username: siwinski *** NOTE: Rename/repackage because upstream dropped PEAR packaging as of version 2.4.0 -- 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 1047110] New: Review Request: php-doctrine-dbal - Doctrine Database Abstraction Layer (DBAL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047110 Bug ID: 1047110 Summary: Review Request: php-doctrine-dbal - Doctrine Database Abstraction Layer (DBAL) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shawn.iwin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/siwinski/rpms/1ec41e8e5728d432aacacd7eabbf75dcede2c271/php-doctrine-dbal.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-doctrine-dbal-2.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The Doctrine database abstraction access layer (DBAL) offers a lightweight and thin runtime layer around a PDO-like API and a lot of additional, horizontal features like database schema introspection and manipulation through an OO API. The fact that the Doctrine DBAL abstracts the concrete PDO API away through the use of interfaces that closely resemble the existing PDO API makes it possible to implement custom drivers that may use existing native or self-made APIs. For example, the DBAL ships with a driver for Oracle databases that uses the oci8 extension under the hood. Fedora Account System Username: siwinski *** NOTE: Rename/repackage because upstream dropped PEAR packaging as of version 2.4.0 -- 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 1047111] Review Request: php-doctrine-orm - Doctrine Object-Relational-Mapper (ORM)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047111 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 842931 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=842931action=edit php-doctrine-DoctrineORM.repoquery.txt repoquery of pkgs requiring php-doctrine-DoctrineORM -- 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 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 842929 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=842929action=edit php-doctrine-DoctrineCommon.repoquery.txt repoquery of pkgs requiring php-doctrine-DoctrineCommon -- 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 1047110] Review Request: php-doctrine-dbal - Doctrine Database Abstraction Layer (DBAL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047110 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 842930 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=842930action=edit php-doctrine-DoctrineDBAL.repoquery.txt repoquery of pkgs requiring php-doctrine-DoctrineDBAL -- 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 1046124] Review Request: php-doctrine-lexer - Base library for a lexer that can be used in top-down, recursive descent parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046124 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047109 ||(php-doctrine-common) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 [Bug 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects -- 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 1046123] Review Request: php-doctrine-inflector - Common string manipulations with regard to casing and singular/plural rules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046123 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047109 ||(php-doctrine-common) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 [Bug 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects -- 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 1046121] Review Request: php-doctrine-cache - Doctrine Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046121 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047109 ||(php-doctrine-common) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 [Bug 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects -- 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 1046122] Review Request: php-doctrine-collections - Collections abstraction library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046122 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047109 ||(php-doctrine-common) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 [Bug 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects -- 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 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1046122 ||(php-doctrine-collections), ||1046123 ||(php-doctrine-inflector), ||1046125 ||(php-doctrine-annotations), ||1046124 ||(php-doctrine-lexer), ||1046121 ||(php-doctrine-cache) Alias||php-doctrine-common Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046121 [Bug 1046121] Review Request: php-doctrine-cache - Doctrine Cache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046122 [Bug 1046122] Review Request: php-doctrine-collections - Collections abstraction library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046123 [Bug 1046123] Review Request: php-doctrine-inflector - Common string manipulations with regard to casing and singular/plural rules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046124 [Bug 1046124] Review Request: php-doctrine-lexer - Base library for a lexer that can be used in top-down, recursive descent parsers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046125 [Bug 1046125] Review Request: php-doctrine-annotations - PHP docblock annotations parser library -- 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 1046125] Review Request: php-doctrine-annotations - PHP docblock annotations parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046125 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047109 ||(php-doctrine-common) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 [Bug 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects -- 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 1047110] Review Request: php-doctrine-dbal - Doctrine Database Abstraction Layer (DBAL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047110 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1047109 ||(php-doctrine-common) Alias||php-doctrine-dbal Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 [Bug 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects -- 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 1047109] Review Request: php-doctrine-common - Common library for Doctrine projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047109 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047110 (php-doctrine-dbal) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047110 [Bug 1047110] Review Request: php-doctrine-dbal - Doctrine Database Abstraction Layer (DBAL) -- 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 1047111] Review Request: php-doctrine-orm - Doctrine Object-Relational-Mapper (ORM)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047111 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1046122 ||(php-doctrine-collections), ||1047110 (php-doctrine-dbal) Alias||php-doctrine-orm Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046122 [Bug 1046122] Review Request: php-doctrine-collections - Collections abstraction library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047110 [Bug 1047110] Review Request: php-doctrine-dbal - Doctrine Database Abstraction Layer (DBAL) -- 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 1046122] Review Request: php-doctrine-collections - Collections abstraction library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046122 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047111 (php-doctrine-orm) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047111 [Bug 1047111] Review Request: php-doctrine-orm - Doctrine Object-Relational-Mapper (ORM) -- 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 1047110] Review Request: php-doctrine-dbal - Doctrine Database Abstraction Layer (DBAL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047110 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1047111 (php-doctrine-orm) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047111 [Bug 1047111] Review Request: php-doctrine-orm - Doctrine Object-Relational-Mapper (ORM) -- 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
