[Bug 1006104] Review Request: gqrx - Software defined radio receiver powered by GNU Radio and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006104
--- Comment #23 from Eric Christensen ---
Spec file says license is GPLv3+ but there are some components that are GPLv2
and BSD licensed.
BSD (2 clause)
--
gqrx-2.2.0/dsp/agc_impl.cpp
gqrx-2.2.0/qtgui/freqctrl.cpp
gqrx-2.2.0/qtgui/meter.cpp
gqrx-2.2.0/qtgui/meter.h
gqrx-2.2.0/qtgui/plotter.cpp
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
--
gqrx-2.2.0/dsp/afsk1200/cafsk12.cpp
gqrx-2.2.0/dsp/afsk1200/cafsk12.h
gqrx-2.2.0/dsp/afsk1200/filter-i386.h
gqrx-2.2.0/dsp/afsk1200/filter.h
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:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL
(v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1006104-gqrx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gqrx
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gqrx
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patche
[Bug 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Many thanks for the reviews! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: 0install Short Description: A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system Owners: salimma Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 783064] Review Request: python-omniORB - A robust high performance CORBA ORB for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783064 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Richard Shaw --- I'm not sure how successful I'll be just yet, but I'm attempting to package salome which requires this package. Let me know if you need any help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051152] Review Request: python-qt5 - Python bindings for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051152 --- Comment #16 from Kevin Kofler --- So 3.16.7 doesn't have anything that we don't have already (we can still rebase on the latest tarball though, so we can drop a 787-byte patch, LOL), but openSUSE has a patch and couple hacks that could help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 653917] Review Request: gimagereader - A tesseract OCR front-end
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=653917 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- gimagereader-2.91-0.2git20140216.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gimagereader-2.91-0.2git20140216.fc19 -- 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 653917] Review Request: gimagereader - A tesseract OCR front-end
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=653917 Till Maas changed: What|Removed |Added CC|opensou...@till.name| --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- gimagereader-2.91-0.2git20140216.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gimagereader-2.91-0.2git20140216.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051152] Review Request: python-qt5 - Python bindings for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051152 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Kofler --- I see upstream released PyKDE 3.16.7 in 2013: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pyqt/files/PyKDE3/ We currently have 3.16.6. Maybe 3.16.7 helps here. I'll try importing it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1051152] Review Request: python-qt5 - Python bindings for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051152 --- Comment #14 from Kevin Kofler --- I see PyKDE 3 still failing to rebuild against the new SIP. :-( I need to have a look whether we can fix it somehow. Is there anything else that doesn't rebuild cleanly? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016221] Review Request: courier-authlib - The Courier authentication library provides authentication services for other Courier applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016221 --- Comment #8 from Zvi "Viz" Effron --- SPEC: http://fedorapkgs.flippedperspective.com/courier-authlib/0.66.1-1/SPECS/courier-authlib.spec SRPM: http://fedorapkgs.flippedperspective.com/courier-authlib/0.66.1-1/SRPMS/courier-authlib-0.66.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji f19 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6534172 Koji f20 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6534168 Koji f21 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6534161 Koji rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6534160 Several of the changes I suggested to upstream were merged into 0.66.1. Also, I've determined the ld.so.conf file and ldconfig runs do need to be in the base package or the executables won't be able to find the shared libraries. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065628] Review Request: fedora-release-secure - Fedora release secure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065628 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi --- I don't see the point of this package... By default fedora-release already uses a https metalink. (which is actually better than a https baseurl). Additionally, dl.fedoraproject.org are the master mirrors. We don't want all our users to go directly to them or it will cause them to get too much load and be unable to answer. Can you explain what you are trying to do and perhaps we can figure out a better way to do it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063043] Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- Hi Christopher, any chance of finishing this? Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065628] Review Request: fedora-release-secure - Fedora release secure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065628 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt --- Has this been discussed any agreed on anywhere prior to this review request? IMHO, and if at all, what this package does should be done as a subpackage of the fedora-release 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 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #33 from Richard Shaw --- SPEC: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/OCE.spec SRPM: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/OCE-0.15-2.fc19.src.rpm Yup! Fixed the license... Missed the exception part the first time around. -- 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 1061902] Review Request: qepcad-B - Quantifier elimination tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061902 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065685] Review Request: rubygem-unicorn - Rack HTTP server for fast clients and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065685 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer --- *** Bug 786636 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 786636] Review Request: rubygem-unicorn - Rack HTTP server for fast clients and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786636 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-02-15 15:43:51 --- Comment #18 from Ken Dreyer --- I've updated the package to drop the Fedora 18 conditionals, since that release is EOL now. http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-unicorn.git/commit/?id=a9edc7c4b789758834f3c0fd285fab438b720ea5 New package review request at bug 1065685 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1065685 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065685] New: Review Request: rubygem-unicorn - Rack HTTP server for fast clients and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065685 Bug ID: 1065685 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-unicorn - Rack HTTP server for fast clients and Unix Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ktdre...@ktdreyer.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-unicorn.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-unicorn-4.8.2-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Unicorn is an HTTP server for Rack applications designed to only serve fast clients on low-latency, high-bandwidth connections and take advantage of features in Unix/Unix-like kernels. Slow clients should only be served by placing a reverse proxy capable of fully buffering both the the request and response in between Unicorn and slow clients. Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6533905 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823351] Review Request: rubygem-yajl-ruby - Ruby C bindings to YAJL - a JSON stream-based parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823351 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(jd...@aquezada.co ||m) --- Comment #14 from Ken Dreyer --- Hi Julian, just checking to see if you've had a chance to review those patches and merge them into your yajl-ruby package? It would be great to get yajl-ruby into Fedora. I've updated for the latest yajl-ruby release (1.2.0): http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-yajl-ruby.git/commit/?id=40e3e04fa5fb421ffda3b2112eb0570257413fb5 F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6533809 -- 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 1060465] Review Request: perl-Excel-Writer-XLSX - Create a new file in the Excel 2007+ XLSX format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060465 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Excel-Writer-XLSX-0.76-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061902] Review Request: qepcad-B - Quantifier elimination tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061902 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- qepcad-B-1.69-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065682] New: Review Request: rubygem-paperclip - File attachments as attributes for ActiveRecord
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065682 Bug ID: 1065682 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-paperclip - File attachments as attributes for ActiveRecord Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ktdre...@ktdreyer.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-paperclip.spec SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-paperclip-4.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Easy upload management for ActiveRecord Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6533765 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1006860] Review Request: libnatpmp - Library of The NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006860 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- libnatpmp-20131126-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064579] Review Request: mingw-wavpack - Completely open audiocodec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064579 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-wavpack-4.60.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040180] Review Request: rubygem-virtus - Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040180 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Ken Dreyer --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-virtus Short Description: Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063428] Review Request: rubygem-bogus - Create fakes to make your isolated unit tests reliable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063428 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-bogus Short Description: Create fakes to make your isolated unit tests reliable Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065678] Review Request: ghc-crypto-cipher-types - Generic cryptography cipher types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065678 Sébastien Willmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||923574 (ghc-cipher-aes) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923574 [Bug 923574] Review Request: ghc-cipher-aes - Fast AES cipher implementation with advanced mode of operations -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923574] Review Request: ghc-cipher-aes - Fast AES cipher implementation with advanced mode of operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923574 Sébastien Willmann changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1065678 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065678 [Bug 1065678] Review Request: ghc-crypto-cipher-types - Generic cryptography cipher types -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065678] New: Review Request: ghc-crypto-cipher-types - Generic cryptography cipher types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065678 Bug ID: 1065678 Summary: Review Request: ghc-crypto-cipher-types - Generic cryptography cipher types Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sebastien.willm...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypto-cipher-types/ghc-crypto-cipher-types.spec SRPM URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypto-cipher-types/ghc-crypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Generic cryptography cipher types. Fedora Account System Username: wilqu Pre-release git repo: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypto-cipher-types/ghc-crypto-cipher-types.git/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055398] Review Request: 0install - A decentralized cross-distribution software installation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055398 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Jerry James --- That fixes it. And Richard's fix for bug 1065447 worked; this package now builds in Rawhide, too. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 --- Comment #44 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Avi Alkalay from comment #43) > Folks, elektra is already in Fedora. You are confused (rsp. insufficiently familiar with Fedora): C.f. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209906#c41 => This is an epel7 branch request and not a review request. -- 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 1062901] Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Thanks! === Package Name: openspecfun Short Description: Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions New Branches: f20 f19 Owners: nalimilan 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 1051152] Review Request: python-qt5 - Python bindings for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051152 --- Comment #13 from Rex Dieter --- fyi, if anyone comes here from, https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/40624/how-to-install-pyqt5-on-fedora-20/ Currently, PyQt5 is supported only on rawhide/f21+, since it requires a newer version of sip that is currently in fedora 20. I'm investigating a possible sip update for f20 too, but as that would require updates to other dependant packages, it's not a certainty. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040180] Review Request: rubygem-virtus - Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040180 --- Comment #9 from Achilleas Pipinellis --- Forgot to say thanks, as I need it for gitlab too :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024779] Review Request: roger-router - Roger router manager for FRITZ!Box and compatible routers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024779 --- Comment #8 from Louis Lagendijk --- Updated the spec file with the comments above (I hope I did no miss anything). Some comments: The FSF-address in COPYING and COPYING.LPGL is incorrect. I have pinged upstream and this will be corrected in the next upstream release I have left libroutermanager as a package as upstream is planning to use it for other projects too New Spec and SRPM: http://fazant.net/roger-router/roger-router-1.8.3-1/roger-router.spec http://fazant.net/roger-router/roger-router-1.8.3-1/roger-router-1.8.3-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande --- Last changes: - Update to svn4638 - 'data' sub-package is now arched It seems that it's not possible define noarch the 'data' package. I obtained BuildError: mismatch when analyzing ascend-data-0.9.8-1.20140211svn4638.fc21.noarch.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6522713 - Built a 'data' sub-package - Removed Tcl/Tk subpackage building because of missing dependencies (tktable) - Defined two macros for the packaging - Defined the scriplets in %%post, %%postun, %%posttrans - Patching compiler flags - Added CUnit-devel BR - IDA solver excluded Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-2.20140211svn4638.fc20.src.rpm Koji build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6522934 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 230228] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230228 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 New Branches: epel7 Owners: pghmcfc InitialCC: perl-sig This package is included in RHEL-7 but not for ppc64, resulting in broken dependencies on that architecture for packages needing it (such as perl-Authen-Simple). The package owner in Fedora, psabata, isn't doing any EPEL-7 packages so I'll take this, clone the RHEL-7 SRPM and prefix the release with "0." as per the EPEL guidelines for limited arch packages. -- 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 1040180] Review Request: rubygem-virtus - Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040180
Achilleas Pipinellis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Achilleas Pipinellis ---
Ok, bogus can now be in rawhide, so this can also be built fully. Feel free to
make any changes and run the test suite. I'm approving this.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[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
[Bug 1055730] Review Request: vdr-iptv - multicast IPTV transport stream plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055730 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- vdr-iptv-2.0.2-7.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vdr-iptv-2.0.2-7.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063039] Review Request: rubygem-em-http-request - EventMachine based, async HTTP Request client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063039 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |rubygem-em-http-request |rubygem-em-http-request - |-EventMachine based, async |EventMachine based, async |HTTP Request client |HTTP Request client -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 - The Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |rubygem-cookiejar - he Ruby |rubygem-cookiejar - The |CookieJar is a library to |Ruby CookieJar is a library |help manage client-side |to help manage client-side |cookies in pure Ruby|cookies in pure Ruby -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062901] Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande --- Thanks to Orion for the clarifications. Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 896193] Review Request: plank - A port of docky to Vala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896193 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Christopher Meng --- Please also remove the group tag in devel package since you've done that in the main package. PACKAGE APPROVED. -- 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 1065641] Review Request: libhttpserver - Library embedding RESTful HTTP server functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065641 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951827] Review Request: alef-fonts - A free multi-lingual font designed for screens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951827 --- Comment #11 from Elad Alfassa --- I'm not going to write summary and description in Hebrew: CLI utilities can't display RTL languages properly, and I don't think there's any UI tool (especially now when gnome-pacakgekit is not used anymore) which would display localized descriptions. Also, thank you for the review :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951827] Review Request: alef-fonts - A free multi-lingual font designed for screens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951827 Elad Alfassa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Elad Alfassa --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: alef-fonts Short Description: A free multi-lingual font designed for screens Owners: elad Branches: f19, 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 1065641] New: Review Request: libhttpserver - Library embedding RESTful HTTP server functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065641 Bug ID: 1065641 Summary: Review Request: libhttpserver - Library embedding RESTful HTTP server functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sluka...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/libhttpserver/0.7.0-1/libhttpserver.spec SRPM URL: http://isimluk.fedorapeople.org/libhttpserver/0.7.0-1/libhttpserver-0.7.0-1.src.rpm Description: libhttpserver is a small C++ library for embedding RESTful HTTP server functionality into applications. Fedora Account System Username: isimluk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055730] Review Request: vdr-iptv - multicast IPTV transport stream plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055730 Ville Skyttä changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||496968 (DebugInfo) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496968 [Bug 496968] Tracking bug for packages with debuginfo problems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055730] Review Request: vdr-iptv - multicast IPTV transport stream plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055730
Ville Skyttä changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
CC||ville.sky...@iki.fi
Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |---
Keywords||Reopened
--- Comment #18 from Ville Skyttä ---
(In reply to Mohamed El Morabity from comment #11)
> [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
No, it's not useful, it's completely empty! One way to fix it:
-make CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIC" CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIC" %{?_smp_mflags}
all
+make CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIC" CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIC" STRIP=:
%{?_smp_mflags} all
[
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065628] Review Request: fedora-release-secure - Fedora release secure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065628 --- Comment #2 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- I hope to make all roads available :) --- - Add updates and rawhide repos. - All repos disabled by default. --- Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/fedora-release-secure.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/fedora-release-secure-20-2.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 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 --- Comment #43 from Avi Alkalay --- Folks, elektra is already in Fedora. 'yum install elektra' works and you'll get version 0.7.0. I was the original developer of this software years ago but now maintenance was taken over by Markus Raab and others. -- 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 1003089] Review Request: glusterfs-openstack-swift - Gluster for Swift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003089 --- Comment #32 from Michael Schwendt --- It means %defattr can simply be dropped unless you want to build the package for some much older target. In koji, there is RPM 4.4.x for EL5 and RPM 4.8.0 for EL6. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065628] Review Request: fedora-release-secure - Fedora release secure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065628 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- I'm afraid this package can't be included. Awaiting Legal team. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065628] New: Review Request: fedora-release-secure - Fedora release secure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065628 Bug ID: 1065628 Summary: Review Request: fedora-release-secure - Fedora release secure Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: moc...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/fedora-release-secure.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/fedora-release-secure-20-1.src.rpm Description: Fedora repos with secure URLs. Fedora Account System Username: moceap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065627] New: Review Request: pire - Perl Incompatible Regular Expressions library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065627 Bug ID: 1065627 Summary: Review Request: pire - Perl Incompatible Regular Expressions library 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/pire.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/pire-0.0.5-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Pire is developed in Yandex (http://company.yandex.ru/) as a part of its web crawler. It aims at checking a huge amount of text against relatively many regular expressions. Roughly speaking, it can just check whether given text maches the certain regexp, but can do it really fast (more than 400 MB/s on our hardware is common). Even more, multiple regexps can be combined together, giving capability to check the text against apx.10 regexps in a single pass (and mantaining the same speed). Since Pire examines each character only once, without any lookaheads or rollbacks, spending about five machine instructions per each character, it can be used even in realtime tasks. On the other hand, Pire has very limited functionality (compared to other regexp libraries). Pire does not have any Perlish conditional regexps, lookaheads & backtrackings, greedy/nongreedy matches; neither has it any capturing facilities. 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 1063428] Review Request: rubygem-bogus - Create fakes to make your isolated unit tests reliable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063428
Achilleas Pipinellis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Achilleas Pipinellis ---
Ok good to go :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test
[Bug 1063428] Review Request: rubygem-bogus - Create fakes to make your isolated unit tests reliable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063428 Achilleas Pipinellis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||axill...@archlinux.gr Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|axill...@archlinux.gr 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 1060421] Review Request: python-plist - Accessing Apple Property Lists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060421 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #6) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > > packages/plist(libplist-python) > > > WARNING: Potential conflicts with libplist-python. Please test. > > I wonder what's the better solution: to Conflict: libplist-python or to > patch this package so it lives in another directory. You thoughts? IMO the conflicts tag should be added, as they both provdies __init__.py and it's impossible to make them compatible with each other. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065624] New: Review Request: sfk - The Swiss File Knife File Tree Processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065624 Bug ID: 1065624 Summary: Review Request: sfk - The Swiss File Knife File Tree Processor 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/sfk.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/sfk-1.7.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is the Swiss File Knife (SFK), a command line multi function tool created by StahlWorks Technologies which combines many functions in a single, portable executable that belongs onto every USB stick. Search and convert text files, instant simple FTP/HTTP server, find duplicate files, compare folders, treesize, run own commands on all files of a folder - it's all within a single tool. 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 1060421] Review Request: python-plist - Accessing Apple Property Lists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060421 Matěj Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #6 from Matěj Cepl --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- > packages/plist(libplist-python) > WARNING: Potential conflicts with libplist-python. Please test. I wonder what's the better solution: to Conflict: libplist-python or to patch this package so it lives in another directory. You 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
