[Bug 1020942] Package Request: wxGTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942 --- Comment #19 from Dan Horák --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17) > Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec... > > 1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentions that they're not supported > and just deletes them. this seems to be being out-of-sync in the wxGTK3 spec, bakefiles are installed in the wxGTK2 spec for some time > 2. I've got the compat26 option enabled right now... I'm not sure we need it > since 2.8 should have this enabled... IMHO the wxGTK3 package should be a clean wxGTK3 without enabling the wxGTK2 compat methods > 3. I'm building against GTK3 instead of GTK2 but I'm assuming that's OK with > you. > > That seems to be the big stuff... and as for wx-config using alternatives should work for switching between wxGTK2 and wxGTK3 and there is also a question of wxwin.m4 installed in /usr/share/aclocal in wxGTK2 package, but %excluded in wxGTK3, again the alternatives could do the work -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #7 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Elad Alfassa from comment #6) > 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. Please continue ;) I will wait. -- 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 1063140] Review Request: tofrodos - Converts text files between MSDOS and Unix file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063140 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1062854 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062854 [Bug 1062854] advancecomp-1.18 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 1060651] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-support - Common functionality to Rspec series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060651 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Well, as this is prelease I thought using fake pre-3 version is better for fake Provides, however now I write full EVR provides and it should be okay. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-rspec-support.spec mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-rspec-support-3.0.0-0.2.beta1.fc.src.rpm * Mon Feb 10 2014 Mamoru TASAKA - 3.0.0-0.2.beta1 - Modify Provides EVR -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062808] Review Request: cvechecker - Command-line utility to scan the system based on CVE data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Waiting for upstream's reply. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: srcpd - Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- I just asked this question in packaging about udev rules: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2014-February/010013.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: srcpd - Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich --- Ad EL5: You got me the wrong way around: I meant you don't have to make them conditional: "clean section" instead of "if el5; then clean section; endif" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036901] Review Request: rubygem-org-ruby - Ruby routines for parsing org-mode files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036901
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
Sorry for delay.
1 issue and 1 request
1 issue:
* Duplicate files
- %{gem_instdir}/bin/org-ruby is inclued in both
main and -doc subpackages.
1 request
* Version upgrade
- Well, it seems that 0.9.0 is out on 2014-02-08
(while I did not review your package yet...)
Please upgrade to the latest, thank you.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062314] Review Request: apache-commons-collections4 - Extension of the Java Collections Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062314 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: apache-commons-collections4 Short Description: Extension of the Java Collections Framework Owners: mizdebsk msrb sochotni Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062314] Review Request: apache-commons-collections4 - Extension of the Java Collections Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062314 --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Thank you, I'll fix changelog at import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063140] New: Review Request: tofrodos - Converts text files between MSDOS and Unix file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063140 Bug ID: 1063140 Summary: Review Request: tofrodos - Converts text files between MSDOS and Unix file formats Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cicku...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://cicku.me/tofrodos.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/tofrodos-1.7.13-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tofrodos is a text file conversion utility that converts ASCII and Unicode UTF-8 files between the MSDOS (or Windows) format, which traditionally have CR/LF (carriage return/line feed) pairs as their new line delimiters, and the Unix format, which usually have LFs (line feeds) to terminate each line. It is a useful utility to have around when you have to convert files between MSDOS (or Windows) and Unix/Linux/BSD (and her clones and variants). It comes standard with a number of systems and is often found on the system as "todos", "fromdos", "dos2unix" and "unix2dos". Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063048] Review Request: rubygem-eventmachine_httpserver - EventMachine HTTP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063048 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |eventmachine_httpserver - |rubygem-eventmachine_httpse ||rver - EventMachine HTTP ||Server Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063042] Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket - EventMachine based WebSocket server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063042 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |em-websocket - EventMachine |rubygem-em-websocket - |based WebSocket server |EventMachine based ||WebSocket server Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063047] Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |em-websocket-client - A |rubygem-em-websocket-client |WebSocket client|- A WebSocket client |implementation for |implementation for |EventMachine|EventMachine Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063119] EPEL7 Branch Request: advancecomp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063119 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- Package Change Request == Package Name: advancecomp New Branches: epel7 Owners: thias cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #2 from Adam Goode --- Having some troubles running fedora-review on my centos box. May have to file some bugs there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063119] New: EPEL7 Branch Request: advancecomp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063119 Bug ID: 1063119 Summary: EPEL7 Branch Request: advancecomp Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cicku...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org This is a new branch request of package advancecomp. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #8 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> ./configure with Fedora default flags throws up error.
>
> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/75748/92002850/
>
> I am looking into this and based on the interactions on #fedora-devel, I
> have also contacted the author for his thoughts.
Remove %{?_smp_mflags} and retry.
Besides:
1. Leave a blank line between each changelog.
2. checking for IceConnectionNumber in -lICE... no
3. description is too poor, please improve. Don't forget the dot at the end.
4. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
equals to
%setup -q
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #7 from Mukundan Ragavan --- ./configure with Fedora default flags throws up error. http://paste.fedoraproject.org/75748/92002850/ I am looking into this and based on the interactions on #fedora-devel, I have also contacted the author for his thoughts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063045] Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Package is APPROVED. Since this is for Fedora, please consider adding a sentence like "This package is useful when building Debian on Fedora." Also, it might be more grammatically correct to s/some useful tools for/some tools useful for/. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 948359] Review Request: python-volatility - a digital artifact extraction framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948359 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-volatility-2.3.1-1.f |python-volatility-2.3.1-2.f |c19 |c20 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- python-volatility-2.3.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 948359] Review Request: python-volatility - a digital artifact extraction framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948359 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-volatility-2.3.1-1.f ||c19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-02-09 22:13:27 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- python-volatility-2.3.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063043] Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1063044 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044 [Bug 1063044] Review Request: dh-autoreconf - debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the 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 1063044] Review Request: dh-autoreconf - debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1063043
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
So, all is great, apart from the lack of cdbs.
= 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]: 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.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: dh-autoreconf-9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
dh-autoreconf-9-1.fc20.src.rpm
dh-autoreconf.noarch: E: devel-dependency gettext-devel
I don't see why this
[Bug 1063045] Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools-0.19.3-3.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 10 2014 Sandro Mani - 0.19.3-3 - Add description -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063045] Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045 --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > As far as /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Debian is concerned, that is owned by > debhelper. So I don't think owning it again is necessary. Oh, I missed that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063045] Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- *blush* first time I managed to forget %description ... As far as /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Debian is concerned, that is owned by debhelper. So I don't think owning it again is necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063044] Review Request: dh-autoreconf - debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1063045] Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues:
===
- Package should own %{perl_vendorlib}/*
(according to Guidelines/Perl). Otherwise /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Debian
and subdirectories will be unowned.
- %description is empty
= 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]: 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.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= 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.
(I didn't build any packages using dh_gnome on Fedora, but at least --help
works :) )
[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 all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: gnome-pkg-tools-0.19.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
gnome-pkg-tools-0.19.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
gnome-pkg-tools.noarch: E: no-description-tag
gnom
[Bug 1063045] Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools-0.19.3-2.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 10 2014 Sandro Mani - 0.19.3-2 - Added gnome-policy.html to %%doc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823661] Review Request: lessfs - An inline data deduplicating filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823661 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1047647] Review Request: libchardet - Mozilla's Universal Charset Detector C/C++ API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047647
--- Comment #8 from Ben Reedy ---
Thanks for the help Denis.
New URL for the SRPM:
http://breed808.com/rpmfusion-submission/libchardet-1.0.2-4.fc20.src.rpm
Michael, I'm not sure how to get %find_lang to work in this situation. As far
as I know, %find_lang uses a string (usually %{name}), but the manpages for
libchardet have various names (detect.3.gz, detect_destroy.3.gz,
detect_init.3.gz, etc). Is it possible to pass a wildcard to %find_lang ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 530473] Review Request: lessfs - Lessfs is an inline data deduplicating filesystem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530473 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #49 from Christopher Meng --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 823661 *** -- 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 823661] Review Request: lessfs - An inline data deduplicating filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823661 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) CC||maxamillion@fedoraproject.o ||rg --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 530473 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839260] Review Request: Agda-stdlib - Agda standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839260 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen --- Thanks for reviewing the package. Strictly this is not a Haskell package but let me keep it under the SIG for now. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: Agda-stdlib Short Description: Agda standard library Owners: petersen Branches: f20 f19 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063045] Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 687875] Review Request: aarddict - Multi-platform dictionary and offline Wikipedia reader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687875 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||linux.n@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(linux.n.pkd@gmail ||.com) --- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng --- News? -- 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 1060817] Review Request: fllog - Amateur Radio Log Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817 --- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw --- Well I've gone back and forth with the developer and of course from his point of view he doesn't have a problem with bundled libraries since he makes sure it builds for not just Linux, but BSD, MacOS, etc... I tried creating my own library I think successfully using cmake, but I'm not very good with autotools to hack fllog to use the system copy. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1054565] Review Request: ghc-securemem - Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review. :) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-securemem Short Description: Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks Owners: petersen Branches: f20 f19 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062942] Review Request: csv - The CSV command line Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng ---
1. It's a good habit to move BuildRequires above Requires:
2. No need to use %{__make}, just make.
3. Remove these:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null ';'
%clean section
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
4. If the permission is incorrect, correct it in %install, avoid %attr(0755,
root, root) nowadays(or, say, always).
5. RPM can help gzip the manpages, so you can write this:
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
The glob will let RPM check and finish the compressing.
6. Each time you do something of SPEC in review, please bump the Release:
Release:1%{?dist}
to
Release:2%{?dist}
And so forth.
Also in %changelog, please bump also:
* Mon Feb 10 2014 <> - 0.07-2
- Correct the issues mentioned in review(bug 1062942)
* Mon Feb 10 2014 <> - 0.07-1
7. Please scratch a build in Koji, and paste the job URL to here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #3 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- Hi Antonio :). Thank you for your inputs. I've had removed the BuildRoot and added the doc files that are available. Here you can find the current version of the files: - 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 - Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6510467 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063053] Review Request: rubygem-middleman-sprockets - Sprockets support for Middleman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063053 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |middleman-sprockets - |rubygem-middleman-sprockets |Sprockets support for |- Sprockets support for |Middleman |Middleman Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063050] Review Request: rubygem-http_parser - This gem provides a high quality http parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063050 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: http_parser |Review Request: |- This gem provides a high |rubygem-http_parser - This |quality http parser library |gem provides a high quality ||http parser library Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063054] Review Request: rubygem-rb-fsevent - FSEvents API with Signals catching (without RubyCocoa)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063054 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: rb-fsevent |Review Request: |- FSEvents API with Signals |rubygem-rb-fsevent - |catching (without |FSEvents API with Signals |RubyCocoa) |catching (without ||RubyCocoa) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063039] Review Request: rubygem-em-http-request -EventMachine based, async HTTP Request client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063039 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review |Review Request: |Request:em-http-request |rubygem-em-http-request |-EventMachine based, async |-EventMachine based, async |HTTP Request client |HTTP Request client Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: em-socksify |Review Request: |- Transparent proxy support |rubygem-em-socksify - |for any EventMachine|Transparent proxy support |protocol|for any EventMachine ||protocol Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063038] Review Request: rubygem-cookiejar - he Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: cookiejar - |Review Request: |he Ruby CookieJar is a |rubygem-cookiejar - he Ruby |library to help manage |CookieJar is a library to |client-side cookies in pure |help manage client-side |Ruby|cookies in pure Ruby Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063055] Review Request: rubygem-rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063055 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: rb-kqueue - |Review Request: |A Ruby wrapper for BSD's|rubygem-rb-kqueue - A Ruby |kqueue, using FFI |wrapper for BSD's kqueue, ||using FFI Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063060] Review Request: rubygem-websocket - Universal Ruby library to handle WebSocket protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063060 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: websocket - |Review Request: |Universal Ruby library to |rubygem-websocket - |handle WebSocket protocol |Universal Ruby library to ||handle WebSocket protocol Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063052] Review Request: rubygem-middleman - A static site generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063052 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- I hope I won't clean the shits next time. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need 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 1063052] Review Request: rubygem-middleman - A static site generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063052 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: middleman - |Review Request: |A static site generator |rubygem-middleman - A ||static site 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 1063043] Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani --- dpkg-checkbuilddeps exists but does not work, i.e. you get $ dpkg-checkbuilddeps dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: build-essential:native For dpkg-checkbuilddeps to work, you need a dpkg database on your system with the respective packages installed which dpkg-checkbuilddeps is looking for. This will hardly work on 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 1063043] Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- dpkg-dev provides that dpkg-checkbuilddeps. But dpkg-dev in Fedora needs an update to 1.17... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 987738] Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987738 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manisan...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 1063075 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063075] Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063075 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-02-09 19:57:49 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 987738 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Lokesh Mandvekar 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 1013258] Review Request: xombrero - Minimalist vi-like web browser with designed-in security features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013258 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2014-02-09 19:51:42 -- 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 1060817] Review Request: fllog - Amateur Radio Log Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw --- (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #3) > This package seems to bundle xmlrpc++ from > https://sourceforge.net/projects/xmlrpcpp/. Yes, it appears so does the flrig program and it appears to be dead upstream (last update 2003) He has modified it quite a bit so I'm tempted to say it's a fork, but even if we can agree to that, it's still bundled in almost every one of the programs, even in fldigi which is already in Fedora. > Version 1.1.7 is not available to download; please try to package 1.1.8. Yes, there was a serious bug found in 1.1.7 but I was going to build 1.1.8 after the review but I'll go ahead and update it now. > You must validate the desktop file. A few compiler warnings should be sorted > out upstream and the FSF address should be updated. Also consider to include > the AUTHORS file. Whoops on the desktop file, fixed. > > I think there's a typo in the description: "it's" should be "its". What does > "class(s)" mean? I'm not sure whether the last two lines of the description > are very useful as part of the package description. Cut and pasted from upstream, but fixed none-the-less. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989850] Review Request: mingw-libmicrohttpd - MinGW package for libmicrohttpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Michael Cronenworth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-libmicrohttpd Short Description: MinGW package for libmicrohttpd Owners: mooninite Branches: f20 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 989850] Review Request: mingw-libmicrohttpd - MinGW package for libmicrohttpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850 --- Comment #10 from Erik van Pienbroek --- You can ignore that, it's a copy/paste issue in my review template which I forgot to remove -- 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] Review Request: srcpd - Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911
--- Comment #2 from Denis Fateyev ---
(In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #1)
> Did you leave out README.loconet and README.selectrix on purpose?
I found them not really informative, don't remember why.. I can add them back
though.
> You can remove %defattr(-,root,root,-). It's not required in EPEL 5.
Well, in contrary I think it can be useful for EPEL5. Guidelines says that it's
no longer needed for rpm >= 4.4, but it doesn't break things either.
> I think you can remove the {?el5} constructions. While the covered elements
> are no longer necessary in later distribution releases, they don't do any
> harm either.
No, I think we can't since I'm planning to package for EPEL5. Such packages
require "BuildRoot" tag,"%clean" section, and so on:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063075] New: Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063075 Bug ID: 1063075 Summary: Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/dput.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/dput-0.9.6.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Debian package upload tool Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989850] Review Request: mingw-libmicrohttpd - MinGW package for libmicrohttpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850 --- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth --- (In reply to Erik van Pienbroek from comment #8) > The BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem should be versioned > (to >= 95). > Please fix this before importing this package in Fedora The spec has the BRs versioned this way. I'll wait to request SCM to hear if you meant something else in the spec was wrong. -- 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 989847] Review Request: mingw-plibc - MinGW package for plibc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-plibc Short Description: MinGW package for plibc Owners: mooninite Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 --- Comment #21 from Denis Arnaud --- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep.spec SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep-0.6.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Successful Koji build (for all the architectures): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6509587 Now everything appears to work as expected*. *: Note that the Python script has got a manual page, but can only be executed from the Python site-packages directory. I do not know how to solve that issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875087] Review Request: pbsclusterviz - Visualise the status of PBS clusters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875087 --- Comment #23 from Paul Cochrane --- (In reply to Paul Cochrane from comment #22) > (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #21) > > - cluster_status (and perhaps even gen_nodes_file) is too generic. Please > > add a pbs (or pbs_) prefix. > > This I will also fix later. Actually, that was the reason why I put these > configuration files in /etc/pbsclusterviz.d to start with. Should I change > the file names anyway? My apologies, I misunderstood what you meant. You are correct, the names cluster_status and gen_nodes_file are too generic. It would be a good idea to change cluster_status to pbs_cluster_status. I'll have to think of a good alternative name for gen_nodes_file though. Cheers, Paul -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #6 from Kevin Fenzi ---
1. great.
2. Ok, now that we have verbose build info we can see that it's not using our
default flags. ;(
You can look at the macros directly in the redhat-rpm-macros package, or on any
fedora machine:
rpm --showrc | grep global_cflags
__global_cflags-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches
You may be able to pass this in with a 'export CFLAGS=%{optflags}' or the
like...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063060] New: Review Request: websocket - Universal Ruby library to handle WebSocket protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063060 Bug ID: 1063060 Summary: Review Request: websocket - Universal Ruby library to handle WebSocket protocol 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-websocket-1.1.2.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-websocket-1.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Universal Ruby library to handle WebSocket protocol 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 1063058] Review Request: sprockets-sass - sprockets-sass` fixes all of this by creating a Sass::Importer that is Sprockets aware.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063058 --- Comment #1 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Spec URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-sprockets-sass-1.0.2.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-sprockets-sass-1.0.2-1.fc19.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 1063058] New: Review Request: sprockets-sass - sprockets-sass` fixes all of this by creating a Sass::Importer that is Sprockets aware.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063058 Bug ID: 1063058 Summary: Review Request: sprockets-sass - sprockets-sass` fixes all of this by creating a Sass::Importer that is Sprockets aware. 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: SRPM URL: Description: When using Sprockets 2.0 with Sass you will eventually run into a pretty big issue. `//= require` directives will not allow Sass mixins, variables, etc. to be shared between files. So you'll try to use `@import`, and that'll also blow up in your face. `sprockets-sass` fixes all of this by creating a Sass::Importer that is Sprockets aware. 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 1063057] New: Review Request:sprockets-helpers - Asset path helpers for Sprockets 2.x applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063057 Bug ID: 1063057 Summary: Review Request:sprockets-helpers - Asset path helpers for Sprockets 2.x applications 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-sprockets-helpers-1.1.0.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-sprockets-helpers-1.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Asset path helpers for Sprockets 2.x applications 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 1063056] New: Review Request: rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063056 Bug ID: 1063056 Summary: Review Request: rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-rb-kqueue-0.2.0.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-rb-kqueue-0.2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI 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 1063055] New: Review Request: rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063055 Bug ID: 1063055 Summary: Review Request: rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-rb-kqueue-0.2.0.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-rb-kqueue-0.2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI 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 1063054] New: Review Request: rb-fsevent - FSEvents API with Signals catching (without RubyCocoa)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063054 Bug ID: 1063054 Summary: Review Request: rb-fsevent - FSEvents API with Signals catching (without RubyCocoa) 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-rb-fsevent-0.9.4.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-rb-fsevent-0.9.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: FSEvents API with Signals catching (without RubyCocoa) 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 1063053] New: Review Request: middleman-sprockets - Sprockets support for Middleman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063053 Bug ID: 1063053 Summary: Review Request: middleman-sprockets - Sprockets support for Middleman 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-middleman-sprockets-3.2.0.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ Description: Sprockets support for Middleman 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 1062942] Review Request: csv - The CSV command line Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande --- Hi Fabio. There is a specific wiki page for packaging of Perl software: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl I see a Buildroot line so this software will be packaged for EPEL5, too; or not ? See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag I don't even see any documentation file (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation). ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063052] New: Review Request: middleman - A static site generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063052 Bug ID: 1063052 Summary: Review Request: middleman - A static site generator 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-middleman-3.2.1.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-middleman-3.2.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A static site generator. Provides dozens of templating languages (Haml, Sass, Compass, Slim, CoffeeScript, and more). Makes minification, compression, cache busting, Yaml data (and more) an easy part of your development cycle. 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 1063050] New: Review Request: http_parser - This gem provides a high quality http parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063050 Bug ID: 1063050 Summary: Review Request: http_parser - This gem provides a high quality http parser library 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-http_parser-0.1.3.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-http_parser-0.1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This gem provides a high quality http parser library that can build request information iteratively as data comes over the line without requiring the caller to maintain the entire body of the request as a single string in memory. 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 1063048] New: Review Request: eventmachine_httpserver -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063048 Bug ID: 1063048 Summary: Review Request: eventmachine_httpserver - 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-eventmachine_httpserver-0.2.1.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-eventmachine_httpserver-0.2.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Simple http server. 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 1063047] New: Review Request: em-websocket-client - A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047 Bug ID: 1063047 Summary: Review Request: em-websocket-client - A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-websocket-client-0.1.2.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-websocket-client-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine 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 1063043] New: Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043 Bug ID: 1063043 Summary: Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/cdbs.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/cdbs-0.4.122-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Common build system for Debian packages Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063045] New: Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045 Bug ID: 1063045 Summary: Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools-0.19.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tools for the Debian GNOME Packaging Team Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063044] New: Review Request: dh-autoreconf - debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044 Bug ID: 1063044 Summary: Review Request: dh-autoreconf - debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the build Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/dh-autoreconf.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/dh-autoreconf-9-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the build Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063042] New: Review Request: em-websocket - EventMachine based WebSocket server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063042 Bug ID: 1063042 Summary: Review Request: em-websocket - EventMachine based WebSocket server 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-websocket-0.5.0.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-websocket-0.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: EventMachine based WebSocket server Fedora Account System Username: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] New: Review Request: em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Bug ID: 1063040 Summary: Review Request: em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol 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 1063039] New: Review Request:em-http-request -EventMachine based, async HTTP Request client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063039 Bug ID: 1063039 Summary: Review Request:em-http-request -EventMachine based, async HTTP Request client 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-http-request-1.1.2.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-http-request-1.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: EventMachine based, async HTTP Request client 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 1063038] New: Review Request: cookiejar - he Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Bug ID: 1063038 Summary: Review Request: cookiejar - he Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure 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: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.0.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby. It enables parsing and setting of cookie headers, alternating between multiple 'jars' of cookies at one time (such as having a set of cookies for each browser or thread), and supports persistence of the cookies in a JSON string. 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 1062920] 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 --- Comment #1 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Spec URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-amq-protocol.spec SRPM URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-amq-protocol-1.9.2-1.fc19.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 1020942] Package Request: wxGTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942 --- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17) > Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec... > > 1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentions that they're not supported > and just deletes them. Hmm that's a good question, because if I understand correctly those bakefiles are supported, but I'll remove them and re-add them if necessary in the future. > 2. I've got the compat26 option enabled right now... I'm not sure we need it > since 2.8 should have this enabled... Agreed, plus this flag seems to cause an odd build fail on f20, so I've deemed this as a non-issue. > 3. I'm building against GTK3 instead of GTK2 but I'm assuming that's OK with > you. I'll make this change, I've just been busy but I have some time today to finish this off so it can be reviewed. As for the wx-config, I purpose that patching should be the method for the time being; if a more elegant solution is necessary, this issue can be re-approached. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: srcpd - Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911
Volker Fröhlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich ---
Did you leave out README.loconet and README.selectrix on purpose?
You can remove %defattr(-,root,root,-). It's not required in EPEL 5.
I think you can remove the {?el5} constructions. While the covered elements are
no longer necessary in later distribution releases, they don't do any harm
either.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #7 from Michael Schwendt --- Well, whose idea was it to add that? ;) There is no comment above that section in the spec file. So, take a look at the configure script and figure out what it does if that option is set. If it only adds compiler flags for SSE2, that's not necessary for x86_64. Documents about GCC say that the SSE2 extension is enabled for default for x86_64. If the configure script also defines preprocessor variables that would affect conditional code, it may be necessary to enable that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060817] Review Request: fllog - Amateur Radio Log Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich ---
I'll review the licenses after you un-bundled xmlrpc++.
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", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No
copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or
later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 60 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/1060817-fllog/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
http://w1hkj.com/downloads/fllog/fllog-1.1.7.tar.gz
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[-]: 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 1062808] Review Request: cvechecker - Command-line utility to scan the system based on CVE data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
1) Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Requires xsltproc wrong and not found in Fedora 20 and rawhide repos
You should instead require libxslt (prefferable) or direct file
/usr/bin/xsltproc from it
2) GPL licens is incorrect: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
According to site https://sourceforge.net/projects/cvechecker/ it should be
GPLv3 but I'm strictly engourage you to clarify it from author. Also ask them
put correct not empty COPYING file in tarball.
3) Rpmlint also said about it among others:
Checking: cvechecker-3.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
cvechecker-3.5-1.fc20.src.rpm
cvechecker.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL
cvechecker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/cvechecker/COPYING
cvechecker.src: W: invalid-license GPL
cvechecker.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
4) In %check
make %{?_smp_mflags} check
should be, of comment about justification why parallel make can't be used.
4) userguide.xml recommend use separate group and user. It is on you choose
but please consider.
5) For what installed userguide.xml? Shouldn't be it converted into something
like html?
6) [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
gawk requires missing, binarie used in scripts cvereport, cvegenversdat,
pullcves (also present file /usr/share/cvechecker/csv2xml.awk)
7) Package functions as described.
(after remove requires xsltproc see before)
$ cvechecker -i
Can't open database /var/cvechecker/local/main.db: unable to open database file
So config should be changed to point on something like
/var/run/cvechecker/main.db, and that ghost file with dir included.
= 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:
"Unknown or generated".
Noone file contain license string.
According to site https://sourceforge.net/projects/cvechecker/ it should be
GPLv3 but I'm strictly engourage you to clarify it from author. Also ask them
put correct not empty COPYING file in tarball.
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
In %check
make %{?_smp_mflags} check
should be, of comment about justification why parrallel make can't be used.
[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.
gawk requires missing, binarie used in scripts cvereport, cvegenversdat,
pullcves (also present file /usr/share/cvechecker/csv2xml.awk)
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[+/-]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Mostly. See other notes.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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 o
[Bug 1054565] Review Request: ghc-securemem - Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565
Sébastien Willmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Sébastien Willmann ---
Package approved.
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.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/WilQu/fedpkg/reviews/1054565-ghc-
securemem/licensecheck.txt
Note: license is not specified in the source files.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: %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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: 0 specfiles, no ExcludeArch: found
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 18 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:
[-]: 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.
Can load module and use functions in ghci
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English l
[Bug 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
$ rpmlint mingw-libidl.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-libIDL-0.8.14-2.fc20.src.rpm
mingw-libIDL.src: E: invalid-spec-name
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-libIDL-0.8.14-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw32-libIDL-static-0.8.14-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libIDL-0.8.14-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libIDL-static-0.8.14-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw32-libIDL.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libIDL/COPYING
mingw32-libIDL.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/libIDL-2.0/libIDL/IDL.h
mingw32-libIDL-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-libIDL.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw64-libIDL/COPYING
mingw64-libIDL.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/libIDL-2.0/libIDL/IDL.h
mingw64-libIDL-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-libIDL
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem >= 95
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll)
mingw32(libglib-2.0-0.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32-pkg-config
mingw32(user32.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-libIDL
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem >= 95
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(libglib-2.0-0.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64-pkg-config
mingw64(user32.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-libIDL-static
mingw32-libIDL = 0.8.14-2.fc20
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-libIDL-static
mingw64-libIDL = 0.8.14-2.fc20
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-libIDL
mingw32-libIDL = 0.8.14-2.fc20
mingw32(libidl-2-0.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-libIDL
mingw64-libIDL = 0.8.14-2.fc20
mingw64(libidl-2-0.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-libIDL-static
mingw32-libIDL-static = 0.8.14-2.fc20
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-libIDL-static
mingw64-libIDL-static = 0.8.14-2.fc20
$ wget --quiet
ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/libIDL/0.8/libIDL-0.8.14.tar.bz2 -O - |
md5sum
bb8e10a218fac793a52d404d14adedcb -
$ md5sum libIDL-0.8.14.tar.bz2
bb8e10a218fac793a52d404d14adedcb libIDL-0.8.14.tar.bz2
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[!] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[+] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[+] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[!] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The filename of the spec file (mingw-libidl.spec) doesn't match the package
name (mingw-libIDL). Please change this before importing this package in Fedora
The incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning should be reported upstream, but
they're not blocking for this review
The mingw32 package seems to depend on libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll while the mingw64
package doesn't. I've also seen this on various other packages so we can
ignore this for now
==
The package mingw-libIDL is APPROVED by epienbro
==
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/m
[Bug 989847] Review Request: mingw-plibc - MinGW package for plibc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
$ rpmlint mingw-plibc.spec
mingw-plibc.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-plibc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: plibc-code-147-trunk.zip
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-plibc-0.1.7-0.2.20130812svn147.fc20.src.rpm
mingw-plibc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libc -> lib, lib c
mingw-plibc.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-plibc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: plibc-code-147-trunk.zip
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings
$ rpmlint mingw32-plibc-0.1.7-0.2.20130812svn147.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw64-plibc-0.1.7-0.2.20130812svn147.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw32-plibc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libc -> lib, lib
c
mingw32-plibc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-plibc/COPYING
mingw32-plibc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-plibc/COPYING
mingw32-plibc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/plibc.h
mingw32-plibc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/langinfo.h
mingw64-plibc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libc -> lib, lib
c
mingw64-plibc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mingw64-plibc/COPYING
mingw64-plibc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw64-plibc/COPYING
mingw64-plibc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/plibc.h
mingw64-plibc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/langinfo.h
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-plibc
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32(advapi32.dll)
mingw32(comdlg32.dll)
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem >= 95
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll)
mingw32(libintl-8.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(ole32.dll)
mingw32(shell32.dll)
mingw32(user32.dll)
mingw32(ws2_32.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-plibc
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw64(advapi32.dll)
mingw64(comdlg32.dll)
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem >= 95
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(libintl-8.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64(ole32.dll)
mingw64(shell32.dll)
mingw64(user32.dll)
mingw64(ws2_32.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-libmicrohttpd-static
mingw32-libmicrohttpd = 0.9.33-1.fc20
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-libmicrohttpd-static
mingw64-libmicrohttpd = 0.9.33-1.fc20
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-plibc
mingw32-plibc = 0.1.7-0.2.20130812svn147.fc20
mingw32(libplibc-1.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-plibc
mingw64-plibc = 0.1.7-0.2.20130812svn147.fc20
mingw64(libplibc-1.dll)
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[!] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[+] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[+] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[!] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The invalid-url rpmlint warning can be ignored as you're using a SVN checkout
The spelling rpmlint warnings can also be ignored
The wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding and incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warnings
should be reported upstream, but they're not blocking for this review
The mingw32 package seems to depend on libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll while the mingw64
package doesn't. I've also seen this on various other packages s
[Bug 989850] Review Request: mingw-libmicrohttpd - MinGW package for libmicrohttpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
$ rpmlint mingw-libmicrohttpd.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-libmicrohttpd-0.9.33-1.fc20.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-libmicrohttpd-0.9.33-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw32-libmicrohttpd-static-0.9.33-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libmicrohttpd-0.9.33-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libmicrohttpd-static-0.9.33-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
mingw32-libmicrohttpd-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-libmicrohttpd-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-libmicrohttpd
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem >= 95
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll)
mingw32(libgcrypt-11.dll)
mingw32(libgnutls-28.dll)
mingw32(libplibc-1.dll)
mingw32(libwinpthread-1.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32-pkg-config
mingw32(ws2_32.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-libmicrohttpd
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem >= 95
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(libgcrypt-11.dll)
mingw64(libgnutls-28.dll)
mingw64(libplibc-1.dll)
mingw64(libwinpthread-1.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64-pkg-config
mingw64(ws2_32.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-libmicrohttpd-static
mingw32-libmicrohttpd = 0.9.33-1.fc20
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-libmicrohttpd-static
mingw64-libmicrohttpd = 0.9.33-1.fc20
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-libmicrohttpd
mingw32-libmicrohttpd = 0.9.33-1.fc20
mingw32(libmicrohttpd-10.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-libmicrohttpd
mingw64-libmicrohttpd = 0.9.33-1.fc20
mingw64(libmicrohttpd-10.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-libmicrohttpd-static
mingw32-libmicrohttpd-static = 0.9.33-1.fc20
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-libmicrohttpd-static
mingw64-libmicrohttpd-static = 0.9.33-1.fc20
$ wget --quiet http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/libmicrohttpd/libmicrohttpd-0.9.33.tar.gz
-O - | md5sum
013b10f9de1cda5448b29c81305354a3 -
$ md5sum libmicrohttpd-0.9.33.tar.gz
013b10f9de1cda5448b29c81305354a3 libmicrohttpd-0.9.33.tar.gz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[+] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[+] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[!] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The mingw32 package seems to depend on libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll while the mingw64
package doesn't. I've also seen this on various other packages so we can
ignore this for now
The BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem should be versioned
(to >= 95).
Please fix this before importing this package in Fedora
=
The package mingw-libmicrohttpd is APPROVED by epienbro
=
--
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 1054565] Review Request: ghc-securemem - Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565 Sébastien Willmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sebastien.willm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sebastien.willm...@gmail.co ||m 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 1062808] Review Request: cvechecker - Command-line utility to scan the system based on CVE data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 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 1062808] Review Request: cvechecker - Command-line utility to scan the system based on CVE data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@hubbitus.info Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info 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
