[Bug 1046807] Review Request: rubygem-activerecord-nulldb-adapter - The Null Object pattern as applied to ActiveRecord database adapters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046807 Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1040180 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040180 [Bug 1040180] Review Request: rubygem-virtus - Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects -- 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 1040180] Review Request: rubygem-virtus - Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040180 Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1046807 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046807 [Bug 1046807] Review Request: rubygem-activerecord-nulldb-adapter - The Null Object pattern as applied to ActiveRecord database adapters -- 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 1046956] Review Request: rubygem-posix-spawn - posix_spawnp(2) for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046956
Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
Spec is clean, only thing is those two warnings when installing it, that I have
no clue what they mean:
- no-soname
- unused-direct-shlib-dependency
Do you have any idea? Other than that and since they are only warnings, it's
safe to say this package is approved. Also tried and it loaded fine in irb.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/axil/review/1046956-rubygem-posix-
spawn/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a
[Bug 1053640] Review Request: python-statsmodels - Statistics in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053640
--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
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.
Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
Why is LICENSE.txt is removed?
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Part of problem is that LICENSE.txt et. al. are removed. Another is that
the subpackages does not require the base package and thus can be installed
without license info. Either require the base package or (IMHO better)
duplicate the license files in the subpackages.
- Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Personally, I don't see the need for the upname macro. It just makes things
harder to read. Also, since the python3 stuff isn't functional I think
it's better to remove for now, re-introducing it once it works. No blockers.
- Add a -a option to the cp command in %build to preserve timestamps.
- The find command has a '-delete' option which is somewhat cleaner.
No blocker.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Public domain, BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 616 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mk/FedoraReview/1053640-python-statsmodels/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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
[Bug 977123] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-concat - Concatenate files with grunt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977123 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 977123] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-concat - Concatenate files with grunt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977123
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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 30720 bytes in 8 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-grunt-contrib-concat-0.3.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-grunt-contrib-concat-0.3.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
nodejs-grunt-contrib-concat.noarch: W:
[Bug 977123] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-concat - Concatenate files with grunt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977123 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- I haven't been able to run the tests as some of the requirements are not packaged yet, but other than that it looks good. Package 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 968603] Review Request: nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended - Cross-platform (browser/NodeJS), non-blocking, handling of dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968603
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Presumably the situation here is the same as nodejs-joosex-simplerequest
and both BSD and LGPLv3 are valid, so the license tag just needs
changing from GPLv3 to LGPLV3 and to OR not AND.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
There is a copy of Depended.mmd file in lib that duplicates what is in
doc so it should be dropped from lib I think.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
I haven't managed to get the tests to run, even after installing the
test-run npm locally. It just complains about Harness not having a
configure method.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tom/968603-nodejs-joosex-namespace-
depended/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 235520 bytes in 35 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test
[Bug 639380] Review Request: swftools - Utilities for working with Adobe Flash files (SWF files)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639380 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #3) Any changes on this? BTW, it would be nice to have it in Fedora repos ;-) See comment 2. -- 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 1051665] Review Request: vdr-skinnopacity - A highly customizable native true color skin for the VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051665 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vdr-skinnopacity-1.0.3-6.20131221git0b29805.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vdr-skinnopacity-1.0.3-6.20131221git0b29805.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 1046807] Review Request: rubygem-activerecord-nulldb-adapter - The Null Object pattern as applied to ActiveRecord database adapters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046807
Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
Apart from the warning about the incoherent-version-in-changelog, spec looks
good.
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:
Unknown or generated. 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/axil/review/1046807-rubygem-activerecord-nulldb-
adapter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English
[Bug 1040180] Review Request: rubygem-virtus - Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040180 --- Comment #5 from Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr --- You want to update the spec file once activerecord-nulldb-adapter is in rawhide? -- 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 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- I'd like to branch this for epel. I am the current Fedora maintainer. Package Change Request == Package Name: python-oauthlib New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: ralph -- 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 1025368] Review Request: python-jira - A library to ease use of the JIRA 5 REST APIs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025368 Bug 1025368 depends on bug 1025367, which changed state. Bug 1025367 Summary: Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED 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 1025601] Review Request: python-pypump - Python Pump.io library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025601 Bug 1025601 depends on bug 1025367, which changed state. Bug 1025367 Summary: Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED 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 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED Resolution|ERRATA |--- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #13 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- I'd like to branch this for epel. I am the current Fedora maintainer. Package Change Request == Package Name: python-requests-oauthlib New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: ralph -- 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 1025299] Review Request: python-oauthlib - An implementation of the OAuth request-signing logic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025299 --- Comment #13 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Modifying the request to add puiterwijk as an owner Package Change Request == Package Name: python-oauthlib New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: ralph puiterwijk -- 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 1025367] Review Request: python-requests-oauthlib - OAuthlib authentication support for Requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025367 --- Comment #14 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Modifying the request to add puiterwijk as an owner Package Change Request == Package Name: python-requests-oauthlib New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: ralph puiterwijk -- 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 1055005] Review Request: system-config-repo - Administrate a single yum repository file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055005 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051771] Review Request: vdr-tvguide - a highly customizable 2D EPG viewer plugin for the VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051771 --- Comment #5 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-tvguide.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-tvguide-1.0.0-7.20140119gita65fca4.fc20.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Jan 19 2014 Martin Gansser marti...@fedoraproject.org - 1.0.0-7.20140119gita65fca4 - rebuild for new git release - added vdr-tvguide-data as requirement - corrected tarball download instructions -- 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 1048621] Review Request: zabbix22 - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048621
--- Comment #14 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/zabbix22.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/zabbix22-2.2.1-4.fc18.src.rpm
* Fri Jan 17 2014 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at - 2.2.1-4
- Preserve timestamp on all install commands
- Provide bundled md5-deutsch
- Make server and proxy sub-packages noarch
- Add noarch sub-packages for DB files
That should save 2.2 MB at first and then 4.4 MB per architecture.
I think that the license field can remain as it is because the resulting
packages have no single files under the zlib license and the zlib license is
compatible with GPLv2+.
I thought about %{?_isa}, but since none of the components is using anything
arch-dependent from the base package, I don't think it's necessary.
--
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 643199] Review Request: python-pymtp - A Pythonic wrapper around libmtp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643199 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||python-pymtp-0.0.4-1.el6 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pymtp-0.0.4-1.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 1049634] Review Request: python-pymilter - Python interface to sendmail milter API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049634 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pymilter-0.9.8-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1055246] New: Review Request: python-scrapy - A high-level Python Screen Scraping framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055246 Bug ID: 1055246 Summary: Review Request: python-scrapy - A high-level Python Screen Scraping framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-scrapy/python-scrapy.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-scrapy/python-scrapy-0.20.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Scrapy is a fast high-level screen scraping and web crawling framework, used to crawl websites and extract structured data from their pages. It can be used for a wide range of purposes, from data mining to monitoring and automated testing. Fedora Account System Username: echevemaster Tested on koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6427317 -- 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 972348] Review Request: actionlib - Interface for pre-emptible tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972348 --- Comment #1 from Tim Niemueller t...@niemueller.de --- Should this package be called ros-actionlib? I would find it easier if ROS packages (especially core packages) had a common prefix. -- 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 1046992] Review Request: rubygem-gemnasium-parser - Safely parse Gemfiles and gemspecs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046992
Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Achilleas Pipinellis axill...@archlinux.gr ---
All good apart from the macros in changelog. You might want to escape them with
%%. The test suite is going through an update, but it's been almost a year
since then, so I took the liberty and left a comment :) You can wait for a
response and try to include the tests or package this as is for now and include
them later. Either is fine by me.
https://github.com/gemnasium/gemnasium-parser/pull/29#issuecomment-32721326
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:
Unknown or generated. 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/axil/review/1046992-rubygem-gemnasium-
parser/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/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license
[Bug 1048963] Review Request: backupninja - Lightweight, extensible backup system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048963 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- backupninja-1.0.1-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/backupninja-1.0.1-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048963] Review Request: backupninja - Lightweight, extensible backup system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048963 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- backupninja-1.0.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/backupninja-1.0.1-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048963] Review Request: backupninja - Lightweight, extensible backup system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048963 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- backupninja-1.0.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/backupninja-1.0.1-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048963] Review Request: backupninja - Lightweight, extensible backup system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048963 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- backupninja-1.0.1-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/backupninja-1.0.1-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 458408] Review Request: vttest - Test the compatibility of so-called VT100-compatible terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458408 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: vttest New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku maxamillion -- 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 1055246] Review Request: python-scrapy - A high-level Python Screen Scraping framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055246 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Not the latest one... -- 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 1055246] Review Request: python-scrapy - A high-level Python Screen Scraping framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055246 --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Here you go! and thanks for take the review ;) SPEC URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-scrapy/python-scrapy.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-scrapy/python-scrapy-0.22.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Tested on koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6428162 -- 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 1049551] Review Request: jpegoptim - Utility to optimize JPEG files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049551 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc19 |jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc20 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1049551] Review Request: jpegoptim - Utility to optimize JPEG files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049551 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc19 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.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 1045756] Review Request: vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045756 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||vdr-live-0.3.0-9.69f84f9.fc ||20 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vdr-live-0.3.0-9.69f84f9.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 1046340] Review Request: qtkeychain - A password store library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046340 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|qtkeychain-0.1.0-4.20130805 |qtkeychain-0.1.0-4.20130805 |git.fc19|git.fc20 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- qtkeychain-0.1.0-4.20130805git.fc20, owncloud-csync-0.91.4-1.fc20, mirall-1.5.0-2.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 1046340] Review Request: qtkeychain - A password store library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046340 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||qtkeychain-0.1.0-4.20130805 ||git.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-01-19 22:06:07 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- qtkeychain-0.1.0-4.20130805git.fc19, owncloud-csync-0.91.4-1.fc19, mirall-1.5.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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 1055126] Review Request: nfdump - NetFlow collecting and processing tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055126
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Not the latest version.
BTW for el5, a hint:
%{?el5:BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root}
--
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 643199] Review Request: python-pymtp - A Pythonic wrapper around libmtp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643199 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Thanks Jon! Here again... -((* ^_^ *))- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-pymtp New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku -- 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 209894] Review Request: python-eyed3 - Python module for processing ID3 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209894 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-eyed3 New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku -- 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 1054867] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Sentence - Module for splitting text into sentences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054867 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Review: + Package build successfully in mock rawhide - rpmlint on generated rpms gave output perl-Lingua-EN-Sentence.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-Lingua-EN-Sentence/Changes 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as upstream source = f886e3e9e2ddab299f80fd9f252eb48930b0bf4e1cbd1e85193d8565727e171d srpm source = f886e3e9e2ddab299f80fd9f252eb48930b0bf4e1cbd1e85193d8565727e171d + License is valid and included as header in source file. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.02 cusr 0.00 csys = 0.05 CPU) + Package perl-Lingua-EN-Sentence-0.25-1.fc21.noarch = Provides: perl(Lingua::EN::Sentence) = 0.25 perl-Lingua-EN-Sentence = 0.25-1.fc21 Requires: perl = 0:5.005_03 perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(POSIX) perl(locale) perl(strict) perl(vars) Suggestions: 1) Fix the rpmlint warning of file-not-utf8 before importing this package in Fedora. 2) Group tag is optional. You may want to remove it from spec. 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 967258] Review Request: snowbox - A POP3 server written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967258
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||927608
Whiteboard||NotReady
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927608
[Bug 927608] RPM is ignoring debug_package %{nil}
--
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 1055246] Review Request: python-scrapy - A high-level Python Screen Scraping framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055246 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- 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. 296 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: Unknown or generated Scrapy-0.22.0/bin/runtests.sh Scrapy-0.22.0/docs/_ext/scrapydocs.py Scrapy-0.22.0/docs/conf.py Scrapy-0.22.0/extras/coverage-report.sh Scrapy-0.22.0/extras/makedeb.py Scrapy-0.22.0/extras/qps-bench-server.py Scrapy-0.22.0/extras/qpsclient.py Scrapy-0.22.0/extras/scrapy-ws.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/cmdline.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/command.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/bench.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/check.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/crawl.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/deploy.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/edit.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/fetch.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/genspider.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/list.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/parse.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/runspider.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/settings.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/shell.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/startproject.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/version.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/commands/view.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/conf.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contracts/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contracts/default.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/closespider.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/corestats.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/debug.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/djangoitem.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/ajaxcrawl.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/chunked.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/cookies.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/defaultheaders.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/downloadtimeout.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/httpauth.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/httpcache.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/httpcompression.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/httpproxy.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/redirect.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/retry.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/robotstxt.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/stats.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/downloadermiddleware/useragent.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/exporter/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/feedexport.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/httpcache.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/linkextractors/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/linkextractors/htmlparser.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/linkextractors/lxmlhtml.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/linkextractors/regex.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/linkextractors/sgml.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/loader/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/loader/common.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/loader/processor.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/logstats.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/memdebug.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/memusage.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/pipeline/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/pipeline/files.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/pipeline/images.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/pipeline/media.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spidermiddleware/depth.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spidermiddleware/httperror.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spidermiddleware/offsite.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spidermiddleware/referer.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spidermiddleware/urllength.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spiders/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spiders/crawl.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spiders/feed.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spiders/init.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spiders/sitemap.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/spiderstate.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/statsmailer.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/throttle.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/webservice/crawler.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/webservice/enginestatus.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib/webservice/stats.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib_exp/__init__.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib_exp/djangoitem.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib_exp/downloadermiddleware/decompression.py Scrapy-0.22.0/scrapy/contrib_exp/iterators.py
[Bug 1054867] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Sentence - Module for splitting text into sentences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054867 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Thanks for the review, Parag. (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2) 1) Fix the rpmlint warning of file-not-utf8 before importing this package in Fedora. Will do so. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Lingua-EN-Sentence Short Description: Module for splitting text into sentences Owners: corsepiu Branches: f20 f19 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 1055366] New: Review Request: snapraid - Disk array backup for many large rarely-changed files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055366 Bug ID: 1055366 Summary: Review Request: snapraid - Disk array backup for many large rarely-changed files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: space...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/snapraid/snapraid.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/snapraid/snapraid-5.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: SnapRAID is a backup program for disk arrays. It stores parity information of your data and it's able to recover from up to six disk failures. SnapRAID is mainly targeted for a home media center, with a lot of big files that rarely change. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 693608] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693608 --- Comment #49 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com --- Aside from any SELinux issues which we will deal with in this ticket, upstream provides some SELinux policy files. Here is the latest spec and SRPM, first pass mock pass, rpmlint pretty good (with exceptions) SPEC: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga.spec SRPM: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga-1.10.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Of note inside SRPM: icinga-0001-Apache-2.4-configuration-fix-for-Fedora.patch icinga-0002-Added-several-images-to-the-sample-config-revb.patch icinga-0003-fix-tests.patch There are three patches I've included, two from Nagios (the first one modified, second one left as-is) and the third one to fix building the Icinga test suite. If upstream can take any of the patches this would be great! As with Nagios there are funny permissions in this package, I'd like to make sure we've got this all covered so we don't have any issues. Let's begin this kickoff 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 693608] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693608 --- Comment #50 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com --- Created attachment 852626 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=852626action=edit fix build test suite -- 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 693608] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693608 --- Comment #51 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Shawn, please submit a new review and mark this one as obsolete because the initial submitter was not you. -- 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 1055366] Review Request: snapraid - Disk array backup for many large rarely-changed files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055366 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Swap with something later ;) -- 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 1055378] New: Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 Bug ID: 1055378 Summary: Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shawn.st...@rogers.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description of problem: New package: icinga SPEC: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga.spec SRPM: http://spstarr.fedorapeople.org/packages/icinga/icinga-1.10.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Aside from any SELinux issues which we will deal with in this ticket, upstream provides some SELinux policy files. Here is the latest spec and SRPM, first pass mock pass, rpmlint pretty good (with exceptions) Of note inside SRPM: icinga-0001-Apache-2.4-configuration-fix-for-Fedora.patch icinga-0002-Added-several-images-to-the-sample-config-revb.patch icinga-0003-fix-tests.patch There are three patches I've included, two from Nagios (the first one modified, second one left as-is) and the third one to fix building the Icinga test suite. If upstream can take any of the patches this would be great! As with Nagios there are funny permissions in this package, I'd like to make sure we've got this all covered so we don't have any issues. Let's begin this kickoff 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 693608] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693608 Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-01-20 01:33:12 --- Comment #52 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com --- will do *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1055378 *** -- 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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mkir...@learn.senecac.on.ca --- Comment #1 from Shawn Starr shawn.st...@rogers.com --- *** Bug 693608 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oba...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1029087 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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 1029087] Review Request: icinga - monitoring tool. a fork of nagios.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029087 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-01-20 01:34:32 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1055378 *** -- 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 1055378] Review Request: icinga - Open Source host, service and network monitoring program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://fedoraproject.org/w ||iki/Features/Icinga CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I used to hope this could be a Fedora feature then, not sure if you are interested as putting it into Fedora 21 Changes 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 1055391] New: Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Bug ID: 1055391 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel+...@sylvestre.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-easy-format-1.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module offers a high-level and functional interface to the Format module of the OCaml standard library. It is a pretty-printing facility, i.e. it takes as input some code represented as a tree and formats this code into the most visually satisfying result, breaking and indenting lines of code where appropriate. Input data must be first modelled and converted into a tree using 3 kinds of nodes: atoms lists labelled nodes Atoms represent any text that is guaranteed to be printed as-is. Lists can model any sequence of items such as arrays of data or lists of definitions that are labelled with something like int main, let x = or x:. Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- 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 1055393] New: Review Request: ocaml-biniou - Safe and fast binary data format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055393 Bug ID: 1055393 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-biniou - Safe and fast binary data format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel+...@sylvestre.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-biniou.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-biniou-1.0.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Biniou (pronounced be new) is a binary data format designed for speed, safety, ease of use and backward compatibility as protocols evolve. Biniou is vastly equivalent to JSON in terms of functionality but allows implementations several times faster (4 times faster than yojson), with 25-35% space savings. Biniou data can be decoded into human-readable form without knowledge of type definitions except for field and variant names which are represented by 31-bit hashes. A program named bdump is provided for routine visualization of biniou data files. The program atdgen can be used to derive OCaml-Biniou serializers and deserializers from type definitions. Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- 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 1055393] Review Request: ocaml-biniou - Safe and fast binary data format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055393 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1055391 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 [Bug 1055391] Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module -- 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 1055391] Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055393 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055393 [Bug 1055393] Review Request: ocaml-biniou - Safe and fast binary data 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 1055394] New: Review Request: ocaml-cppo - Equivalent of the C preprocessor for OCaml programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055394 Bug ID: 1055394 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-cppo - Equivalent of the C preprocessor for OCaml programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel+...@sylvestre.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-cppo.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-cppo-0.9.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Cppo is an equivalent of the C preprocessor targeted at the OCaml language and its variants. The main purpose of cppo is to provide a lightweight tool for simple macro substitution (#define) and file inclusion (#include) for the occasional case when this is useful in OCaml. Processing specific sections of files by calling external programs is also possible via #ext directives. The implementation of cppo relies on the standard library of OCaml and on the standard parsing tools Ocamllex and Ocamlyacc, which contribute to the robustness of cppo across OCaml versions. Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- 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 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1055393, 1055394, 1055391 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 [Bug 1055391] Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055393 [Bug 1055393] Review Request: ocaml-biniou - Safe and fast binary data format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055394 [Bug 1055394] Review Request: ocaml-cppo - Equivalent of the C preprocessor for OCaml programs -- 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 1055396] New: Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 Bug ID: 1055396 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel+...@sylvestre.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-yojson.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-yojson-1.1.8-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Yojson is an optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format. It addresses a few shortcomings of json-wheel including 2x speedup, polymorphic variants and optional syntax for tuples and variants. ydump is a pretty-printing command-line program provided with the yojson package. The program atdgen can be used to derive OCaml-JSON serializers and deserializers from type definitions. Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- 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 1055393] Review Request: ocaml-biniou - Safe and fast binary data format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055393 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055396 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 [Bug 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON 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 1055394] Review Request: ocaml-cppo - Equivalent of the C preprocessor for OCaml programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055394 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055396 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 [Bug 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON 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 1055391] Review Request: ocaml-easy-format - High-level and functional interface to the Format module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055391 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055396 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 [Bug 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON 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 1055398] New: Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 Bug ID: 1055398 Summary: Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michel+...@sylvestre.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/0install.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/0install-2.5.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: NOTE: this is a renaming of the existing package zeroinstall-injector. Due to upstream rewrite (from pure Python to OCaml and Python) it seems like a good time for a re-review and rename Zero Install is a decentralised cross-distribution software installation system available under the LGPL. It allows software developers to publish programs directly from their own web-sites, while supporting features familiar from centralised distribution repositories such as shared libraries, automatic updates and digital signatures. It is intended to complement, rather than replace, the operating system's package management. 0install packages never interfere with those provided by the distribution. 0install does not define a new packaging format; unmodified tarballs or zip archives can be used. Instead, it defines an XML metadata format to describe these packages and the dependencies between them. A single metadata file can be used on multiple platforms (e.g. Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, openSUSE, Mac OS X and Windows), assuming binary or source archives are available that work on those systems. 0install also has some interesting features not often found in traditional package managers. For example, while it will share libraries whenever possible, it can always install multiple versions of a package in parallel when there are conflicting requirements. Installation is always side-effect-free (each package is unpacked to its own directory and will not touch shared directories such as /usr/bin), making it ideal for use with sandboxing technologies and virtualisation. The XML file describing the program's requirements can also be included in a source-code repository, allowing full dependency handling for unreleased developer versions. For example, a user can clone a Git repository and build and test the program, automatically downloading newer versions of libraries where necessary, without interfering with the versions of those libraries installed by their distribution, which continue to be used for other software. Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- 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 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055398 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 [Bug 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system -- 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 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1055398 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 [Bug 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system -- 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 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1055395, 1055396 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055395 [Bug 1055395] Review Request: ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 [Bug 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON 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
