[Bug 1055396] Review Request: ocaml-yojson - An optimized parsing and printing library for the JSON format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055396 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim mic...@michel-slm.name --- Thanks, review feedback incorporated: Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-yojson.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-yojson-1.1.8-1.fc20.src.rpm - not using smp_mflags as in the previous ocaml packages, upstream's build system doesn't handle it well - tests added - fixed other issues mentioned -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062686] Review Request: libmediaart - Manage and cache media art
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062686
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
libmediaart-0.2.0/ltmain.sh
libmediaart-0.2.0/tests/mediaarttest.c
LGPL (v2.1 or later)
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/cache.c
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/cache.h
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/extract.c
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/extract.h
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/extractdummy.c
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/extractgeneric.h
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/extractpixbuf.c
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/extractqt.cpp
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/mediaart.h
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/storage.c
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/storage.h
Unknown or generated
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/marshal.c
libmediaart-0.2.0/libmediaart/marshal.h
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|el6 |rawhide Product|Fedora EPEL |Fedora Flags|needinfo?(richard@ispavaila | |bility.com) | --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- EPEL7 is still amazing and expected. And it's nosense to package RPMs for EPEL _only_ since EPEL is always behind 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 1062843] New: 3Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 Bug ID: 1062843 Summary: 3Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-rosinstall_generator/python-rosinstall_generator.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-rosinstall_generator/python-rosinstall_generator-0.1.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The rosinstall_generator generates rosinstall files containing information about repositories with ROS packages/stacks. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927461] Review Request: ros - The Robot Operating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927461 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1062843 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 [Bug 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files -- 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 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||927461 (ros) Summary|3Review Request:|Review Request: |python-rosinstall_generator |python-rosinstall_generator |- Generates rosinstall |- Generates rosinstall |files |files --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Quite a simple review. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927461 [Bug 927461] Review Request: ros - The Robot Operating System -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- I help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-rosinstall_generator -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck:
BSD (3 clause)
--
rosinstall_generator-0.1.7/src/rosinstall_generator/__init__.py
rosinstall_generator-0.1.7/src/rosinstall_generator/distro.py
rosinstall_generator-0.1.7/src/rosinstall_generator/dry_distro.py
rosinstall_generator-0.1.7/src/rosinstall_generator/generator.py
Unknown or generated
rosinstall_generator-0.1.7/setup.py
rosinstall_generator-0.1.7/setup.sh
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
[Bug 972345] Review Request: ros_comm - ROS communications-related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972345 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||ros_comm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927458] Review Request: rospack - ROS package and stack tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927458 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||rospack -- 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 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Hi Christoph, Thanks for the quick review. Here's the updated spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-rosinstall_generator/python-rosinstall_generator.spec * Sat Feb 08 2014 Ankur Sinha ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org 0.1.7-1 - Updated as per comments in rhbz 1062843 - Initial rpm build -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-rosinstall_generator Short Description: Generates rosinstall files Owners: ankursinha rmattes Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062843] Review Request: python-rosinstall_generator - Generates rosinstall files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062843 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104
--- Comment #20 from Alexandru Csete oz9...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #17)
Please await Eric ;)
Another potential issue:
%{_datadir}/applications/gqrx.desktop
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/radio.svg
I think that radio is a popular word, it may causes collison with other
pics, is it ok to rename it to gqrx.svg(please check after the renaming the
program can display logo correctly if it really does that)?
It's ok to rename the icon as long as it's done when copying it to
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/ and the file name in the source tree remains unchanged
(the icons are compiled into the binary).
Upstream I will create a gqrx.svg for future releases; however, please note the
since version 2.2 the application icon/logo is the file called scope.svg, not
radio.svg.
--
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 1062686] Review Request: libmediaart - Manage and cache media art
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062686 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks. I'll fix the spaces and -print. The extra linkage is unfortunate too so I'll add a patch to avoid it, once imported New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libmediaart Short Description: Library for managing media art caches Owners: yaneti Branches: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951827] Review Request: alef-fonts - A free multi-lingual font designed for screens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951827 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- A month later. -- 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 1018092] Review Request: barman - Backup and Recovery Manager for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018092 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-02-08 05:54:02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058038] Review Request: systeminfo - simple utility for viewing HW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058038 --- Comment #17 from Pavol Ipoth pavol.ip...@gmail.com --- This is the spec file: http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo.spec and src.rpm which works for EPEL5,6, fedora: http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo-1.2-1.el5.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 879839] Review Request: libchipcard - enable DDV chipcards for HBIC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879839 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Lemm thomas.l...@gmx.de --- Uploaded to same link as above... Many thnks for looking into 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 1051771] Review Request: vdr-tvguide - a highly customizable 2D EPG viewer plugin for the VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051771 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vdr-tvguide-1.2.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vdr-tvguide-1.2.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062901] New: Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 Bug ID: 1062901 Summary: Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nalimi...@club.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/openspecfun.spec SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/openspecfun-0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Currently provides AMOS and Faddeeva. AMOS (from Netlib) is a portable package for Bessel Functions of a Complex Argument and Nonnegative Order; it contains subroutines for computing Bessel functions and Airy functions. Faddeeva allows computing the various error functions of arbitrary complex arguments (Faddeeva function, error function, complementary error function, scaled complementary error function, imaginary error function, and Dawson function); given these, one can also easily compute Voigt functions, Fresnel integrals, and similar related functions as well. Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan I'd like to include this package because it is a dependency of the Julia language that I am currently packaging. The Koji build is: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6506303 rpmlint prints no errors, except an incorrect warning about spelling, and about the fact that subpackages are not documented: rpmlint SPECS/openspecfun.spec RPMS/x86_64/openspecfun-* openspecfun.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Faddeeva - McFadden openspecfun-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openspecfun-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. For now openspecfun is built using system libm, but I'll change this once openlibm is ready to be packaged. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062901] Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1040517 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 [Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1062901 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 [Bug 1062901] Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951827] Review Request: alef-fonts - A free multi-lingual font designed for screens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951827 --- Comment #6 from Elad Alfassa el...@doom.co.il --- Oh shit, totally forgot about this. Thanks for reminding me. Unfortunately I'm a bit under the weather this weekend, so this will either have to wait to next week or to someone else to package this font instead of me. -- 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 1062911] New: Review Request: srcpd - Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911 Bug ID: 1062911 Summary: Review Request: srcpd - Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: de...@fateyev.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora20/testing/srcpd.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora20/testing/SRPMS/srcpd-2.1.2-1.fc20.denf.src.rpm Description: Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) is a communication protocol designed to integrate various models of railroad systems. The srcpd acts a gateway between any kind of model railway systems and user interface programs that support SRCP. IANA assigned TCP port 4303 to it. Fedora Account System Username: dfateyev Note: I disabled RHEL5 and 6 PPC builds, it seems that the software doesn't build and work correctly on ppc. Koji scratch builds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6506767 (Rawhide) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6506761 (EPEL 6) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6506755 (EPEL 5) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984605] Review Request: nwchem - Delivering High-Performance Computational Chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984605] Review Request: nwchem - Delivering High-Performance Computational Chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nwchem-6.3.2-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nwchem-6.3.2-7.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984605] Review Request: nwchem - Delivering High-Performance Computational Chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nwchem-6.3.2-7.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nwchem-6.3.2-7.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984605] Review Request: nwchem - Delivering High-Performance Computational Chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nwchem-6.3.2-7.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nwchem-6.3.2-7.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 --- Comment #19 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- BTW, you can get rid of multiple non-executable-script rpmlint errors dropping executable flag on such files. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#script-without-shebang -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-02-08 10:41:30 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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) | 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 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #19)
BTW, you can get rid of multiple non-executable-script rpmlint errors
dropping executable flag on such files.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#script-without-shebang
Already done *after* latest koji build; see file spec.
##Fix executable permissions
pushd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{icecat_devel}/sdk/bin
for i in `find . -type f \( -name *.py -o -name xpcshell \)`; do
chmod a+x $i
done
popd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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
--- Comment #21 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
BTW, you can get rid of multiple non-executable-script rpmlint errors
dropping executable flag on such files.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#script-without-shebang
Already done *after* latest koji build; see file spec.
##Fix executable permissions
pushd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{icecat_devel}/sdk/bin
for i in `find . -type f \( -name *.py -o -name xpcshell \)`; do
chmod a+x $i
done
popd
and
##Remove spurious executable permissions
pushd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{icecatappdir}
for i in `find . -perm /111 -type f \( -name *.js -o -name *.jsm \)`; do
chmod a-x $i
done
popd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1047647] Review Request: libchardet - Mozilla's Universal Charset Detector C/C++ API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047647
Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de...@fateyev.com
--- Comment #6 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
Planned to package libchardet myself, but incidentally found that the review
request already exists ;-) Small fixes here:
1) Use %{?_smp_mflags} with 'make':
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
2) Use %lang for localized manpages in %files section.
%lang(ko) %{_mandir}/ko/man3/*.3*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057919] Review Request: libflatarray - A library for highly efficient multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057919
Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de...@fateyev.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|de...@fateyev.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mock/sandbox/1057919-libflatarray/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of
[Bug 1057919] Review Request: libflatarray - A library for highly efficient multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057919 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #22 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Sorry, seems I was looking at the previous rpmlint report ;-) Well, waiting info from FPC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1047647] Review Request: libchardet - Mozilla's Universal Charset Detector C/C++ API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047647 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- 2) preferably use %find_lang --with-man and possibly --all-name -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062920] New: Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol -amq-protocol is an AMQP 0.9.1 serialization library for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062920 Bug ID: 1062920 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol -amq-protocol is an AMQP 0.9.1 serialization library for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: niteshnara...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Rubygem-amq-protocol.spec SRPM URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Rubygem-amq-protocol-1.9.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: amq-protocol is an AMQP 0.9.1 serialization library for Ruby. It is not an AMQP client: amq-protocol only handles serialization and deserialization. If you want to write your own AMQP client, this gem can help you with that. Fedora Account System Username: niteshnarayan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062921] New: Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 Bug ID: 1062921 Summary: Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shawn.iwin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw2.github.com/siwinski/rpms/f50ac0f2d540418e96c17a6e97c66d78f043c3ee/php-google-apiclient.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-google-apiclient-1.0.3-0.1.beta.fc20.src.rpm Description: Google APIs Client Library for PHP provides access to many Google APIs. It is designed for PHP client-application developers and offers simple, flexible, powerful API access. Fedora Account System Username: siwinski -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||php-google-apiclient -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060443] Review Request: xfdashboard - GNOME shell like dashboard for Xfce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060443 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Look for a full review later today or tomorrow... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Look for a full review later today or tomorrow... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060443] Review Request: xfdashboard - GNOME shell like dashboard for Xfce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060443
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com ---
Issues:
1. Might ask upstream to include a copy of the GPL in a COPYING file.
(Someone else already did a while back, but he's not done it yet)
(non blocking)
2. Things seem to be building with silent/non verbose mode. Ie:
CC xfdashboard-enums.o
Where we want to see the full compiler line so we can see if it's using
the correct compiler flags. You may need to patch things or just adjust
how you call autogen. We can probibly manually check the compiler flags
but it would be good to fix this now so it's done moving forward.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later). Detailed output
of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/kevin/1060443-xfdashboard/licensecheck.txt
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and
[Bug 248552] cfv - utility to test and create .sfv, .csv, .crc,.md5(sfv-like),md5sum, bsd md5, sha1sum, and .torrent files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248552 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: cfv New Branches: el5 el6 epel7 Owners: dfateyev InitialCC: -- 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 875299] Review Request: slowhttptest - An Application Layer DoS attack simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875299 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: slowhttptest New Branches: el5 el6 epel7 Owners: dfateyev 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 231772] Review Request: Siege - Siege is an http regression testing and benchmarking utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=231772 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: siege New Branches: el5 el6 epel7 Owners: cdamian dfateyev InitialCC: -- 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 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #35 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pkgname New Branches: f19 f20 el5 el6 epel7 Owners: nucleo dfateyev InitialCC: The package is a bit outdated, it would be fine to have an ability to update it to the recent version in current branches along with adding new ones. -- 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 1057766] Review Request: clustal-omega - command line tool for multiple sequence alignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057766 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- So, looking at this, it looks like it has a bundled copy of a thing called 'squid'. http://selab.janelia.org/software.html seems to be the location now. You are going to need to unbundle this and package it seperately most likely. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048667] Review Request: python-docker-py - An API client for docker written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048667 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-docker-py-0.2.3-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docker-py-0.2.3-7.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048667] Review Request: python-docker-py - An API client for docker written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048667 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-docker-py-0.2.3-7.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docker-py-0.2.3-7.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048667] Review Request: python-docker-py - An API client for docker written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048667 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-docker-py-0.2.3-7.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-docker-py-0.2.3-7.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984605] Review Request: nwchem - Delivering High-Performance Computational Chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nwchem-6.3.2-7.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1049557] Review Request: jpeginfo - Utility to obtain information from JPEG files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049557 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|jpeginfo-1.6.1-1.fc19 |jpeginfo-1.6.1-1.el6 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jpeginfo-1.6.1-1.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 1049557] Review Request: jpeginfo - Utility to obtain information from JPEG files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049557 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|jpeginfo-1.6.1-1.el6|jpeginfo-1.6.1-1.el5 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jpeginfo-1.6.1-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 1048667] Review Request: python-docker-py - An API client for docker written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048667 --- Comment #30 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com --- All: Let me know how the latest release looks. Also, feel free to add yourself as co-maintainers :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062049] Review Request: rubygem-rinku - Autolinking for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062049 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1062895 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062895 [Bug 1062895] rubygem-wikicloth-0.8.1 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858078] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtsvg - Qt5 for Windows - QtSvg component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858078 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-qt5-qtsvg Short Description: Qt5 for Windows - QtSvg component Owners: epienbro Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825409] Review Request: gazebo - 3D multi-robot simulator with dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825409 --- Comment #27 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the comments. Updated packages are at Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gazebo/gazebo.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gazebo/gazebo-2.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm I've added the fixes for libgazebo_ccd and libgazebo_skyx in the gazebo cmake config file. I've also fixed libgazebo_player to get rid of the library versioning, it installs as libdir/player/libgazebo_player.so. You are right about the gazebo-devel package requiring other devel packages if gazebo's headers include headers from other libraries, so I added the ones you called out. I also added the desktop file and icon based on the patches you submitted (I changed them a little bit to comply with the packaging guidelines sections on icons and desktop files.) I'm able to run gazebo from gnome as soon as gazebo is installed in f20. I also updated to the latest upstream release (2.2.1) and included some patches that were needed to get gazebo to build on ARM. $ rpmlint gazebo.spec ./fedora-20-x86_64/gazebo-2.2.1-1.fc20/*.rpm gazebo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi - mulch, mufti gazebo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti gazebo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi - mulch, mufti gazebo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti gazebo.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgazebo_ode.so.2.2.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gzfactory-2.2.1 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gzstats-2.2.1 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gzserver-2.2.1 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gztopic-2.2.1 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gzsdf-2.2.1 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gazebo-2.2.1 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gzlog-2.2.1 gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gzmodel_create gazebo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gzclient-2.2.1 gazebo-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gazebo-media.noarch: W: no-documentation gazebo-media.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gazebo-2.2/media/skyx ../../SKYX/Media/SkyX gazebo-playerplugin.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6508072 -- 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 1060804] Review Request: flamp - Amateur Multicast Protocol - file transfer program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.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 1060804] Review Request: flamp - Amateur Multicast Protocol - file transfer program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- These files are licensed with a LGPLv2+
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/Fl_BlockMap.cxx
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/Fl_Native_File_Chooser.cxx
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/Fl_Text_Buffer_mod.cxx
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/missing_strings.c
and this with a GPLv2+
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/date.cxx
Please, fix License tag.
(See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario)
Notes:
- Put 'desktop-file-validate' line in a %check section
- Use %{__isa_bits} macro to expand to either 32 or 64 according to the
architecture of the package
%ifarch x86_64
--enable-optimizations=sse2
%else
--enable-optimizations=none
%endif
becomes
if [ %{__isa_bits} = 64 ]; then
--enable-optimizations=sse2
fi
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or later),
GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* GPL (v3 or
later), *No copyright* GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or later)
(with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address). 84 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/sagitter/1060804-flamp/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: 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
[Bug 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112 --- Comment #36 from nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com --- (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #35) The package is a bit outdated, it would be fine to have an ability to update it to the recent version in current branches along with adding new ones. See bug 1062483. -- 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 629324] Review Request: python-zc-buildout - System for managing development buildouts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629324 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2011-04-28 12:57:24 |2014-02-08 19:06:21 -- 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 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Bug 879928 depends on bug 879932, which changed state. Bug 879932 Summary: Review Request: SocketW - It is a streaming socket C++ library designed to be easy to use https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879932 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 879932] Review Request: SocketW - It is a streaming socket C++ library designed to be easy to use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879932 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-02-08 19:15:24 --- Comment #19 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- I don't know why this ticket is still open, but I think we can safely close 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 1026252] Review Request: kluppe - a live looping instrument
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026252 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(brendan.jones.it@ ||gmail.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024779] Review Request: roger-router - Roger router manager for FRITZ!Box and compatible routers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024779 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Just saying, if you name the spec file on your web server like this, you are causing the fedora-review utility some trouble. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #12 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- I will look at this right away. Thanks for your comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 825409] Review Request: gazebo - 3D multi-robot simulator with dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825409
--- Comment #28 from Scott K Logan log...@cottsay.net ---
Thanks for updating the package, Rich. Great progress!
I've got a couple more notes:
A)
Having the gazebo_player library unversioned is definitely a step in the right
direction. This way it matches the existing player plugins. However, the real
problem is that gazebo-config.cmake is still looking for it, and fails to build
when it can't find it in /usr/lib64. The only logical course of action (in my
mind) is to add %{_libdir}/player to the library search path at
cmake/gazebo-config.cmake.in:18 AND make gazebo-devel depend on
gazebo-playerplugin (so the library is installed). The only alternative is to
remove gazebo_player from gazebo-config.cmake after it is generated.
B)
I've had trouble viewing the gazebo icon in gnome on some machines because it
is not square. I've narrowed it down to machines that have the AMD proprietary
driver installed on them. They simply do not display an icon if it is not
square.
To solve this, I've changed the svg file to make it square, and shifted the
viewport to the original size. This seems to be viewable on all of the systems
I've tried. To do this easily, I've written the following sed command to be
used instead of the cp command in the %install section of the spec:
sed 'N; s/width=\([0-9\.]*\)\n\([
]*\)height=\([0-9\.]*\)/width=\3\n\2height=\3\n\2viewBox=0 0 \1 \3/' \
gazebo/gui/images/gazebo.svg
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}.svg
This should continue to function even if the svg image's dimensions change
upstream, and will ensure that all machines can see the icon as intended.
Thanks for your hard work getting this massive package working!
--scott
--
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 977638] Review Request: python-espeak - Python bindings for espeak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977638 --- Comment #25 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Spec: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29661704/0/3/python-espeak.spec SRPM: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29661704/0/3/python-espeak.spec Now it buils. The source code does not provide a test suite. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060443] Review Request: xfdashboard - GNOME shell like dashboard for Xfce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060443 --- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #4) Issues: 1. Might ask upstream to include a copy of the GPL in a COPYING file. (Someone else already did a while back, but he's not done it yet) (non blocking) Done! I have sent the author an email. I have also enquired if he would like me to open an issue in Github instead. 2. Things seem to be building with silent/non verbose mode. Ie: CC xfdashboard-enums.o Where we want to see the full compiler line so we can see if it's using the correct compiler flags. You may need to patch things or just adjust how you call autogen. We can probibly manually check the compiler flags but it would be good to fix this now so it's done moving forward. I think - Done! :) I have added V=1 to make. mock seems to indicate it works. Updated SPEC: http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/xfdashboard/xfdashboard.spec Updated SRPM: http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/xfdashboard/xfdashboard-0.1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm mock build.log using the SRPM from above: http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/xfdashboard/build.log Thanks again for your comments, Kevin. Much appreciated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104 --- Comment #21 from Josh Bressers bress...@redhat.com --- I'm using the proper icon now. I put it in /usr/share/gqrx rather than the pixmap directory. We can sort out the name later. I also fixed the issues noted above. http://people.fedoraproject.org/~bressers/gqrx-review/gqrx.spec http://people.fedoraproject.org/~bressers/gqrx-review/gqrx-2.2.0-3.fc20.src.rpm -- 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 1062786] Review Request: openslide-python - Python bindings for the OpenSlide library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062786 Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@spicenitz.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|a...@spicenitz.org 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 1062942] New: Review Request: csv - The CSV command line Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942 Bug ID: 1062942 Summary: Review Request: csv - The CSV command line Tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fabioloc...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://data.fabiolocati.com/fedora/csv/csv.spec SRPM URL: http://data.fabiolocati.com/fedora/csv/csv-0.07-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package provides a command-line tool to manipulate CSV (and other delimited, line-based) files. Fedora Account System Username: fale This is my first Fedora package from scratch (I've already created a patch for xls2csv that is possible to find at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062668 and multiple Ubuntu packages) and I'm looking for a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062942] Review Request: csv - The CSV command line Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati fabioloc...@gmail.com --- Forgot to tell in first comment: it works on Koji too (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6508742) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058088] Review Request: mingw-opus - Audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058088 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mingw-opus-1.1-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-02-08 22:51:44 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-opus-1.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055800] Review Request: test-interface - uniform interface to Scala testing frameworks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055800 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|test-interface-1.0-2.fc20 |test-interface-1.0-3.fc20 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- test-interface-1.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062291] Review Request: mingw-speex - Voice compression format (codec)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062291 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-speex-1.2-0.16.rc1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058088] Review Request: mingw-opus - Audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058088 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mingw-opus-1.1-1.fc19 |mingw-opus-1.1-1.fc20 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-opus-1.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620112] Review Request: udpxy - UDP-to-HTTP multicast traffic relay daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620112 --- Comment #37 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- OK, missed that discussion about the update. Anyway, the package change request above still actual. -- 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
