[Bug 990423] Review Request: libsodium - A fork of networking and cryptography library with compatible APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990423 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1045884 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045884 [Bug 1045884] [Tracking ticket] - Update to ZeroMQ v4 -- 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 1060989] Review Request: ghc-io-streams - Simple, composable, easy-to-use stream I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060989 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Whiteboard||Ready --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Needed for Haskell websockets library, and hence threepenny-gui, and some of relrod's new libs (copr, fedora-packages). http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/io-streams -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057849] Review Request: coreboot-utils - Various utilities from coreboot project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057849 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061019] New: Review Request: extra-cmake-modules - Extra modules for cmake from KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061019 Bug ID: 1061019 Summary: Review Request: extra-cmake-modules - Extra modules for cmake from KDE Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lkund...@v3.sk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/extra-cmake-modules.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/extra-cmake-modules-0.0.9-1.src.rpm Description: Various CMake module additions mainly for use by KDE Foundation components. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jhro...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 --- Comment #9 from Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com --- JCasGen resources are unavailables Most of them are available, unfortunately not all and some also have the source comment deleted, suggesting they might have been modified by hand. Generating at least some of them would be possible, but since we don't know whether they wouldn't be manually modified, it no longer seems like a good idea. So leave it as it is. Some test that worked in mock failed in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6488495 -- 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 1048815] Review Request: RdRand - A library and a tool for the asm instruction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048815
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@danny.cz
--- Comment #6 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
few issues in the package to fix
- use ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 instead of ExcludeArch, there is no chance
Intel instructions will work somewhere else
- drop the %clean section, %defattr in %files and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in
%build, it's all done by rpm since F-12 and EL-6
- use an empty line as a delimiter of changelog entries
- drop the BuildRequires: autoconf libtool - all required files are already in
the source archive and they shouldn't be regenerated during build
and one more general note - you shouldn't include the autotools' temporary
outputs like the autom4te.cache and .deps directories, generated Makefile, etc
in the git tree (and source archive)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 437285] Review Request: libgphoto2 - Library for accessing digital cameras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437285 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libgphoto2 Branches: f19 New Owners: twaugh jwrdegoede libgphoto2 somehow has ended up in an orphaned state for f19, while it it still actively supported (and not orphaned for f20+), please unorphan it for f19 making twaugh and jwrdegoede the owners like they are for f20+. -- 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 1061056] New: Review Request: cockpit - A user interface for Linux servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061056 Bug ID: 1061056 Summary: Review Request: cockpit - A user interface for Linux servers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puiterw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//cockpit.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//cockpit-0.2-0.1.d7ebc3dgit.fc20.src.rpm Description: Cockpit runs in a browser and can manage your network of GNU/Linux machines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061056] Review Request: cockpit - A user interface for Linux servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061056 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6487781 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061056] Review Request: cockpit - A user interface for Linux servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061056 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com --- Koji build went fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6488651 The package looks good and works as advertised. Here is a full rpmlint output: libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix - UNIX, Unix, uni libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/socket_wrapper.pc libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so You might want to fix the first warning. The rest are understandable since this is a library to be dlopened, not linked against. The tarball is different from upstream, which is something that needs to be fixed. The rest is OK. I'll post a fedora-review in a separate comment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
--- False positive. This is understandable given the libraries are
supposed to be dlopened
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/remote/jhrozek/rpmbuild/SRPMS/socket_wrapper/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
--- This needs to be fixed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(pkgconfig),
/usr/lib64/cmake(cmake)
This allows the package to be installed even without pkgconfig
or cmake
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
The %cmake macro expands well
[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
This is OK
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
This is a special package in this respect
[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.
[N/A]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[N/A]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[N/A]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[N/A]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[N/A]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: 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
Rpmlint
---
Checking: libsocket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
socket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix - UNIX, Unix,
uni
libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/socket_wrapper.pc
libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so
socket_wrapper.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix - UNIX, Unix, uni
socket_wrapper.src: W:
[Bug 1036393] Review Request: python3-openid - Python 3 port of the python-openid library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036393 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jakub Dorňák from comment #4) To be honest, I have listed the directories just because I was asked to do it in another review (#1036396). It is probably aimed to ensure that every new directory in future versions, which may possibly be bundled library, requires packager's attention. I see. Not what I do, but it can't hurt I s'ppose. Looking at the %check output [0], I think it would be good to add python3-django and python3-httplib2 to BuildRequires (and eventually the others as well, once they get python3 package), so that the tests working with those will be executed too, however these tests currently fail. From what I can tell it seems to be caused by incorrect/incomplete porting of the tests to python3, so it's not that big of a deal. The spec looks fine otherwise, so I'll APPROVE this, but please try to resolve this. [0] http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8585/6488585/build.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jakub Hrozek from comment #2) Issues: === - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages --- False positive. This is understandable given the libraries are supposed to be dlopened If the library is never intended to be linked against, then it belongs in /usr/lib[64]/socket_wrapper/libsocket_wrapper.so -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058445] Review Request: python-taskflow - Taskflow structured state management library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058445 --- Comment #10 from Pádraig Brady pbr...@redhat.com --- Seems like a bug in fedora-review or something as here docs are only 262729 (67K compressed). Anyway I'll split out just in case -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058445] Review Request: python-taskflow - Taskflow structured state management library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058445 --- Comment #11 from Pádraig Brady pbr...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/python-taskflow.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/python-taskflow-0.1.2-4.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036393] Review Request: python3-openid - Python 3 port of the python-openid library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036393 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com --- Yes, You are right, but since this project is fork of former python2 project, most of the tests themselves are not valid python3 code yet, so the tests would fail even if the tested code was OK. §:o( Therefore it is temporary intention to limit the tests. However, I will add some comment to the spec file, for this situation to be clarified. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #3) (In reply to Jakub Hrozek from comment #2) Issues: === - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages --- False positive. This is understandable given the libraries are supposed to be dlopened If the library is never intended to be linked against, then it belongs in /usr/lib[64]/socket_wrapper/libsocket_wrapper.so Probably, yeah. In that case we talked with Andreas about adding Libs to the .pc file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uima-addons.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uima-addons-2.3.1-1.fc19.src.rpm - Remove tests which requires web access Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6489154 -- 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 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Stephen, but then you cannot do LD_PRELOAD=libsocket_wrapper.so cause the dynamic linker will not find it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #5) Stephen, but then you cannot do LD_PRELOAD=libsocket_wrapper.so cause the dynamic linker will not find it. You could drop a file to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com --- Now it seems okay. -- 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 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: uima-addons Short Description: Apache UIMA Addons components Owners: gil Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 437285] Review Request: libgphoto2 - Library for accessing digital cameras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437285 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Complete. -- 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 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition Notation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 437285] Review Request: libgphoto2 - Library for accessing digital cameras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437285 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- 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 486760] Review Request: mscore - Music Composition Notation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486760 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1057849] Review Request: coreboot-utils - Various utilities from coreboot project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057849 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057849] Review Request: coreboot-utils - Various utilities from coreboot project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057849 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061056] Review Request: cockpit - A user interface for Linux servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061056 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Most of libgsystem has now been patched out (only the header file remains). Spec URL: Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//cockpit.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/cockpit-0.2-0.2.5e1faadgit.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 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Only developers will install these libs and they will only be in BuildRequires and never in Requires :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #7 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- I know, but I don't really want to do that. It would be the same as putting it to /usr/lib64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com ---
Finally getting around to the review -- sorry.
/usr/share/fedora-dockerfiles needs to be owned by the package (list %dir %dir
%{_datadir}/%{name} in the %files)
Not necessary, but it might be cleaner to do the install part in a loop.
Also: the auto-picked up deps on /bin/bash and /bin/sh are spurious, since
those scripts are executed inside the container. I think that making the
scripts not executable will fix that (although I'm not sure that the RUN
command will still work?). So maybe filter out the deps with RPM kludges -- or
else make whatever Dockerfile modifications are needed so the scripts can be
shipped nonexecutable. (That actually makes most sense to me because they could
theoretically actually be disastrous if run on the host accidentally.)
Question for Scott: do we want to do GPLv2 or a more permissive license?
Although it's some amount of overhead, it might be nice to clarify the license
specifically in each Dockerfile (or at least each subdirectory); this gives us
some room to use different possibly-conflicting licenses for different
contributions in the future.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Hrozek jhro...@redhat.com --- Hm, the last comment is a fair point. This library has no meaning on a box that is not a devel machine (or a builder, or a test box) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061056] Review Request: cockpit - A user interface for Linux servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061056
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||puiterw...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(puiterwijk@redhat
||.com)
--- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= ISSUES =
* License: should be 'LGPLv2+' according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
* Please correct the FSF address in cockpit-0.2/src/ws/mock-io-stream.c. I
also suspect this was supposed to be LGPLv2.1+, but it's of little
consequence.
* The tarball contains the bundled sources of libgsystem. Ideally upstream
should remove this if it's not being used, but if they do not, this spec
file must remove everything but the headers.
* Don't use %{mandir}/* for manpage ownership of manpages. This results in
cockpit owning the manpage directories, not just the files. It's better to
include the explicit names, as it means you will notice at build time if you
start accidentally adding inappropriate files here.
Alternately, %{mandir}/man*/* is acceptable, since it will only include
things below the man* path.
* The config files in /etc need to be %config(noreplace) (dbus, config and
PAM) for both the main package and test-assets.
* Move the binaries for the test-server and test-agent to
/usr/libexec/cockpit. Executables cannot be in /usr/share, since its
contents must be noarch.
* Spec file needs to own /usr/share/cockpit directly
* Please add an explicit Requires: dbus to address the ownership of the dbus
directories. (Relying on indirect dependency is not future-proof).
* Package is bundling fonts. This is not strictly forbidden, but if it can
rely on already-packaged fonts, this is highly preferable.
* There is 2MB of data in /usr/share. Most of this is violating the WebAssets
packaging policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later), LGPL, LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address), Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /dev/shm/1061056-cockpit/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cockpit
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d,
/usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/share/cockpit, /etc/dbus-1,
/usr/lib/systemd
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/man/man5(filesystem),
/usr/share/man/man8(filesystem)
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary
[Bug 1060946] Review Request: R-XVector - Representation and manipulation of external sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060946 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- * Package name is according to the guidelines * Spec is clean and follows the guidelines * sha1sum upstream: 8ec2b5d40c99eb1eef5fb060cab21f466038d431 Downloads/XVector_0.2.0.tar.gz * sha1sum srpm: 8ec2b5d40c99eb1eef5fb060cab21f466038d431 R-XVector-0.2.0-1.fc20.src/XVector_0.2.0.tar.gz * License is Artistic 2.0 and there does not seem to be any contradiction with this in the sources * All the content distributed is fine * File/directory ownership is ok * No bundle I can see * Builds fine This looks all good to me, 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 1055730] Review Request: vdr-iptv - multicast IPTV transport stream plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055730
--- Comment #5 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Mohamed El Morabity from comment #1)
- the scripts deployed in %{vdr_configdir}/plugins/iptv/ can be called from
channels.conf when an IPTV channel is selected from VDR. Most of them are
demo scripts; they must be modified/copied to fit users' needs. I wonder if
it's worth marking them as %config(noreplace) so these scripts wouldn't be
overwritten by further updates if they were modified. Notice it's not a
must, only a suggestion.
Do you have any comment on this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057766] Review Request: clustal-omega - command line tool for multiple sequence alignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057766 --- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- Updated SPEC and SRPMs below. SPEC URL: http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/clustal-omega/clustal-omega.spec SRPM URL: http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/clustal-omega/clustal-omega-1.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm $ rpmlint clustal-omega.spec ../SRPMS/clustal-omega-1.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm clustal-omega.src: W: file-size-mismatch clustal-omega-1.2.0.tar.gz = 1160812, http://www.clustal.org/omega/clustal-omega-1.2.0.tar.gz = 1156741 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings The reason for the warning above is because I had to fix wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding in the source using sed. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding Koji scratch build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6490334 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060906] Review Request: nss_wrapper - A wrapper for uiser, group and hosts NSS API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060906 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nss_wrapper/nss_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nss_wrapper/nss_wrapper-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm ChangeLog of 1.0.1: * Added --libs to pkg-config. * Added socket_wrapper-config.cmake * Fixed a bug packaging the obj directory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper-1.0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm * Fixed Unix typo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060909] Review Request: socket_wrapper - A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #10 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm ChangeLog of 1.0.1: * Added --libs to pkg-config. * Added socket_wrapper-config.cmake * Fixed a bug packaging the obj directory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege seperation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/uid_wrapper/uid_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/uid_wrapper/uid_wrapper-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm ChangeLog of 1.0.1: * Added --libs to pkg-config. * Added socket_wrapper-config.cmake * Fixed a bug packaging the obj directory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057766] Review Request: clustal-omega - command line tool for multiple sequence alignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057766 --- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- You must run the sed command in %setup and use unmodified source 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 1057766] Review Request: clustal-omega - command line tool for multiple sequence alignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057766 --- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- Ok. That makes more sense! :) Fixed that. SPEC URL: http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/clustal-omega/clustal-omega.spec SRPM URL: http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/clustal-omega/clustal-omega-1.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm $ rpmlint clustal-omega.spec ../SRPMS/clustal-omega-1.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060946] Review Request: R-XVector - Representation and manipulation of external sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060946 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: R-XVector Short Description: Representation and manipulation of external sequences Owners: spot Branches: f20 epel7 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 1055730] Review Request: vdr-iptv - multicast IPTV transport stream plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055730
--- Comment #6 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
(In reply to Mohamed El Morabity from comment #1)
- the scripts deployed in %{vdr_configdir}/plugins/iptv/ can be called from
channels.conf when an IPTV channel is selected from VDR. Most of them are
demo scripts; they must be modified/copied to fit users' needs.
agreed
I wonder if it's worth marking them as %config(noreplace) so these scripts
wouldn't be overwritten by further updates if they were modified.
Notice it's not a must, only a suggestion.
agree absolutely, removed this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060946] Review Request: R-XVector - Representation and manipulation of external sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060946 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060946] Review Request: R-XVector - Representation and manipulation of external sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060946 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 --- Comment #9 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- The meta-package thing was done with the idea that in the future more packages could be installed by default. What comes to mind, similar to what happens with R, is a host of recommended packages for plotting, data frames, data import (in short, JuliaStats). There was a debate about whether these should be handled via system packages or using Julia's package management system. Not sure what's the best solution (with the former, you don't need duplicate copies for each user). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 --- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- I believe meta-packages are frowned upon and comps groups preferred for this sort of thing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845115] Review request: python-django-recaptcha - A Django application for adding ReCAPTCHA to a form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845115 --- Comment #13 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com --- Hi Matthias http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-recaptcha.spec http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-recaptcha-0.0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Now the test run! Best Regards! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I will do this review, assigning. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|backupninja-1.0.1-2.el5 |backupninja-1.0.1-2.el6 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- backupninja-1.0.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 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 Fixed In Version|python-pymilter-0.9.8-4.fc2 |python-pymilter-0.9.8-4.el6 |0 | --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pymilter-0.9.8-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1048963] Review Request: backupninja - Lightweight, extensible backup system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048963 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|backupninja-1.0.1-2.fc20|backupninja-1.0.1-2.el5 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- backupninja-1.0.1-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 1039335] Review Request: glite-lb-logger - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping local-logger and inter-logger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039335 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-logger-2.4.21-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1051678] Review Request: glite-lb-client-java - Java implementation of the LB service client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051678 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-client-java-2.0.5-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1060906] Review Request: nss_wrapper - A wrapper for uiser, group and hosts NSS API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060906 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege seperation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later)
(with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated, GPL (v3 or
later). 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/al/tmp/FedoraReview/1060852-flnet/licensecheck.txt
--- They are all compatible, but a license break-down is required.
The easiest is probably to use (GPLv2+ and GPLVv3 and LPGL2.1), but
promoting some license(s) is an option.
- According to licensecheck some files have wrong FSF address. Please
file a bug or so upstream about this issue.
= 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]: %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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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:
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]:
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 859312 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=859312action=edit Patch to fix the bad FSF addresses (to be sent upstream). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Yeah, I'm still not really good with licenses... Assuming we uprev the lower GPL files, should we sayGPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Nor am I, and I might have given wrong (well, incomplete ;) ) info on this earlier. If you choose to promote, you also need to patch the sources [1]. Although not that complicated in this case, it might be easier just to expand the license tag. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1005792] Review Request: uima-addons - Apache UIMA Addons components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005792 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- uima-addons-2.3.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uima-addons-2.3.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Whoops, no MIT in this one, I was in the wrong directory (fllog instead of flnet, that's a separate 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 1061056] Review Request: cockpit - A user interface for Linux servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061056 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(puiterwijk@redhat | |.com) | --- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//cockpit.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/cockpit-0.2-0.3.5e1faadgit.fc20.src.rpm I have: - Fixed license tag - Updated to new FSF address upstream - Removing libgsystem before build - Now claiming specific manpages - Made the config files noreplace - Removed the test assets - Put the web assets in a subpackage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(de...@fateyev.com |
|) |
--- Comment #16 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
Updated review including latest changes:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
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)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[!]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Note: See rpmlint output
[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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in icecat
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in icecat
[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 81920 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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
[Bug 845115] Review request: python-django-recaptcha - A Django application for adding ReCAPTCHA to a form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845115 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #14 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Why do you still use the Group tag? It's already deprecated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060915] Review Request: aether-connector-okhttp - OkHttp Aether Connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060915 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) --- Comment #1 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- This will be a dependency for eclipse-m2e-core 1.5.x 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 1060915] Review Request: aether-connector-okhttp - OkHttp Aether Connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060915 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 845115] Review request: python-django-recaptcha - A Django application for adding ReCAPTCHA to a form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845115 --- Comment #15 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com --- http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-recaptcha.spec http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-recaptcha-0.0.6-2.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 1016444] ReviewRequest: festige - a GUI frontend to fst and dssi vst (run Windows VST audio plugins under wine)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016444
Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
Some quick comments:
* Use %{name} macro in %prep
* Add COPYING and README files as %doc
* Group tag is deprecated
* Just add one package per BuildRequire tag line
I'm not an official packager so this is just an informal 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 1060277] Review Request: pig - a platform for analyzing large data sets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060277
--- Comment #6 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for making the tarball change, Pete. I only turned up a couple of minor
issues in the review.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- 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
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
= 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
- add %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} (not just all of the files therein) to %files
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
- as above
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
- you don't need an explicit jpackage-utils requirement if you're using
maven-local
[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.
[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 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]: 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:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
= 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 dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 1060915] Review Request: aether-connector-okhttp - OkHttp Aether Connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060915 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Issues: === - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' Please, remove aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/src/test/files/aether-spi-0.9.0.M2.jar [!]: 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. aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/license-header.txt [!]: 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. 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1060915-aether-connector- okhttp/licensecheck.txt Apache (v2.0) and EPLv1.0 aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/src/main/java/io/tesla/aether/okhttp/ssl/CertificateUtils.java aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/src/main/java/io/tesla/aether/okhttp/ssl/SslContextFactory.java Apache (v2.0) aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/src/main/java/io/tesla/aether/wagon/OkHttpsWagon.java [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Please open a bug to include it [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060915] Review Request: aether-connector-okhttp - OkHttp Aether Connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060915 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Please FIX aether-connector-okhttp.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.1-1 ['0.0.10-0.1.fc21', '0.0.10-0.1'] -- 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 1060915] Review Request: aether-connector-okhttp - OkHttp Aether Connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060915
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'
Please, remove aether-connector-okhttp-0.0.10-92f183b.tar.gz
= 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.
aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/license-header.txt
[!]: 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. 64 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1060915-aether-connector-
okhttp/licensecheck.txt
Apache (v2.0) and EPLv1.0
aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/src/main/java/io/tesla/aether/okhttp/ssl/CertificateUtils.java
aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/src/main/java/io/tesla/aether/okhttp/ssl/SslContextFactory.java
Apache (v2.0)
aether-connector-okhttp-92f183b496e7d628d50f07339d4880d4efffbc70/src/main/java/io/tesla/aether/wagon/OkHttpsWagon.java
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: 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: 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 files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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.
Please open a bug to include it
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in aether-
connector-okhttp-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does
[Bug 1058445] Review Request: python-taskflow - Taskflow structured state management library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058445
Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com ---
APPROVED
Some nits below, along with full review report.
Seems like a bug in fedora-review or something as here docs are only 262729
(67K compressed).
Seems f20/f21 buildroot difference, did you have any exceptions from Sphinx
during the build?
1,5M
rpms-unpacked/python-taskflow-doc-0.1.2-4.fc21.noarch.rpm/usr/share/doc/python-taskflow-doc/html/
Nice-to-haves (not review blockers)
* requires.txt in python RPM is best to be avoided, let RPM resolve deps
./usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/taskflow-0.1.2-py2.7.egg-info/requires.txt
* tests not needed for runtime (if really want, ship in -test subpkg?)
./usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/taskflow/tests
* but run them during build in %check
SHOULD [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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.
[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.
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections
[Bug 1058445] Review Request: python-taskflow - Taskflow structured state management library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058445 Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ape...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(p...@draigbrady.com) |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 1060946] Review Request: R-XVector - Representation and manipulation of external sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060946 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-02-04 18:01:23 --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- R-XVector-0.2.0-1.fc21 built (the only target we're doing right now). Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058941] Review Request: GtkAda3 - Ada binding to GTK+ 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058941 --- Comment #3 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- The developers at Adacore worried that the code generation step might produce different code than it does in their environment, so this version compares the files and verifies that the code is identical: https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-2/GtkAda3.spec https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-2/GtkAda3-3.4.2-2.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 1057670] Review Request: jetty8 - jetty compatibility package (libs only)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057670 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020942] Package Request: wxGTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942 --- Comment #15 from Jeremy Newton alexjn...@gmail.com --- Hi Richard! Are you interested in taking over this package? If you are, I'm happy to review this for you this, else wise I can take a look and adapt my spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039818] Review Request: rubygem-wikicloth - Mediawiki parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039818 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks Michael! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-wikicloth Short Description: Mediawiki parser Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1046813] Review Request: rubygem-cocaine - A small library for doing (command) lines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046813 --- Comment #7 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Sorry I missed closing this one, and thanks for taking care of it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1047787] Review Request: rubygem-loofah - Manipulate and transform HTML/XML documents and fragments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047787 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ktdreyer@ktdreyer |fedora-cvs? |.com) | --- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Hi mtasaka, thanks very much for the review! Please accept my apologies for the delay. Work was really busy last month. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-loofah Short Description: Manipulate and transform HTML/XML documents and fragments Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1046992] Review Request: rubygem-gemnasium-parser - Safely parse Gemfiles and gemspecs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046992 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thanks very much for the review! (And apologies for the delayed response.) You're right about the macros in the changelog. I've fixed them: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-gemnasium-parser.git/commit/?id=5b2d0c2398796d9091ea998dab87abcc01d8346e Regarding the tests, I modified the package so that they'll still run, but will not block the build. This will give greater visibility on failures: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-gemnasium-parser.git/commit/?id=4d6d6a47f182e371ec64edf4895d7f450c58e64d I guess that's the best we can do for now. Thanks again. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-gemnasium-parser Short Description: Safely parse Gemfiles and gemspecs Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Thank you very much for the review! (And I apologize for the delay in responding.) Upstream has finally released a new version to rubygems.org, so I've updated my package for this new release: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-activerecord-nulldb-adapter.git/commit/?id=ea9e25d117a2193345ab7adb17bc6aac8cdfe02d That update has removed the rpmlint warning about the version in the changelog. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-activerecord-nulldb-adapter Short Description: The Null Object pattern as applied to ActiveRecord database adapters Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222
--- Comment #5 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #4)
Finally getting around to the review -- sorry.
/usr/share/fedora-dockerfiles needs to be owned by the package (list %dir
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name} in the %files)
Not necessary, but it might be cleaner to do the install part in a loop.
Sure thing. I'll put up a new version after Scott updates upstream.
Also: the auto-picked up deps on /bin/bash and /bin/sh are spurious, since
those scripts are executed inside the container. I think that making the
scripts not executable will fix that (although I'm not sure that the RUN
command will still work?). So maybe filter out the deps with RPM kludges --
or else make whatever Dockerfile modifications are needed so the scripts can
be shipped nonexecutable. (That actually makes most sense to me because they
could theoretically actually be disastrous if run on the host accidentally.)
So the current Dockerfiles seem to handle chmod +x by themselves so I think we
can -x scripts by default.
If that's agreeable, Scott please see my PR for -x on scripts on your github
repo :)
Question for Scott: do we want to do GPLv2 or a more permissive license?
Although it's some amount of overhead, it might be nice to clarify the
license specifically in each Dockerfile (or at least each subdirectory);
this gives us some room to use different possibly-conflicting licenses for
different contributions in the future.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061536] New: Review Request: ofono - Open Source Telephony
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061536 Bug ID: 1061536 Summary: Review Request: ofono - Open Source Telephony Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ofono/ofono.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ofono/ofono-1.14-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: oFono.org is a place to bring developers together around designing an infrastructure for building mobile telephony (GSM/UMTS) applications. oFono includes a high-level D-Bus API for use by telephony applications. oFono also includes a low-level plug-in API for integrating with telephony stacks, cellular modems and storage back-ends. Fedora Account System Username: rdieter Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6493057 rpmlint: ofono.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ofono.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ofono.conf ofono-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061536] Review Request: ofono - Open Source Telephony
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061536 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||ofono -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- My apologies for the delay. I've updated the spec to reflect the current situation, as of today. Change in Git: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-virtus.git/commit/?id=46806b455ad83efc7f05b4fbc019342798e8d773 Spec: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-virtus.spec SRPM: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-virtus-1.0.1-3.fc21.src.rpm (In reply to Achilleas Pipinellis from comment #5) You want to update the spec file once activerecord-nulldb-adapter is in rawhide? Sure, as soon as it lands in Rawhide I'll file a new review request for rubygem-bogus, and then adjust the spec file again. By the way, since activerecord-nulldb-adapter and bogus are just test suite dependencies, rubygem-virtus could still go into Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- You know(In reply to Achilleas Pipinellis from comment #2) 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? I think these are acceptable since it's a rubygem package, but I don't know the details regarding why :( A lot of Ruby packages seem to have these warnings. Thanks a lot for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-posix-spawn Short Description: posix_spawnp(2) for Ruby Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061536] Review Request: ofono - Open Source Telephony
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061536 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1045548 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045548 [Bug 1045548] HSP/HFP Profile not available for Bluetooth headset in Fedora 20, was available in Fedora 19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051372] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Form - Horde Form API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051372 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||php-horde-Horde-Form-2.0.6- ||2.fc20 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-Horde-Form-2.0.6-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895880] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Share - Horde Shared Permissions System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895880 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||php-horde-Horde-Share-2.0.4 ||-1.fc20 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-Horde-Share-2.0.4-1.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 1058068] Review Request: nodejs-chai-connect-middleware - Helpers for testing Connect middleware with Chai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058068 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-proxyquire-0.5.2-1.f ||c20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-02-04 22:33:13 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-proxyquire-0.5.2-1.fc20, nodejs-chai-connect-middleware-0.3.1-1.fc20, nodejs-chai-passport-strategy-0.2.0-1.fc20, nodejs-passport-0.2.0-1.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 on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
