[Bug 1066573] Review Request: taskd - Secure server providing multi-user, multi-client access to task data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066573
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng ---
For issue 14:
%config(noreplace) %attr(0750, taskd, taskd) %{_sysconfdir}/pki/taskd/
IMO should be
%dir %attr(0750, taskd, taskd) %{_sysconfdir}/pki/taskd/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066573] Review Request: taskd - Secure server providing multi-user, multi-client access to task data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066573
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng ---
1. Release:4
No %?dist
2. Systemd requires missing:
Requires(post):systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requires(postun): systemd
3. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
just %setup -q is fine. (not an issue)
4. We don't recommend using macros for commands without special
reasons(different python versions with different macros defines), so you'd
better change %{__mkdir_p} to mkdir -p directly, also applies to %{__install}
macro.
5. No slash needed after %{buildroot} macro, please remove.
6. cp pki/* %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/pki/taskd/.
Better add -a option.
7. %pre section needs improvement:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups#Dynamic_allocation
8. Please use * for manpages in %files:
%{_mandir}/man1/taskd.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man5/taskdrc.5.gz
to
%{_mandir}/man1/taskd.1*
%{_mandir}/man5/taskdrc.5*
9. Systemd scriptlets missing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd
10. rpmlint results:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint taskd
taskd.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
taskd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
taskd.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /etc/pki/taskd/README taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pki/taskd/README taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-readable /etc/pki/taskd/README 0750L
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/pki/taskd/README 0750L
taskd.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pki/taskd/README
taskd.i686: E: script-without-shebang /etc/pki/taskd/README
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/taskd/orgs taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/taskd/orgs taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/taskd/orgs 0750L
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/taskd taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/taskd taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/taskd 0750L
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.client taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.client taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-readable /etc/pki/taskd/generate.client 0750L
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/pki/taskd/generate.client
0750L
taskd.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pki/taskd/generate.client
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /etc/pki/taskd taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pki/taskd taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/pki/taskd 0750L
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.crl taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.crl taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-readable /etc/pki/taskd/generate.crl 0750L
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/pki/taskd/generate.crl 0750L
taskd.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pki/taskd/generate.crl
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.server taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.server taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-readable /etc/pki/taskd/generate.server 0750L
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/pki/taskd/generate.server
0750L
taskd.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pki/taskd/generate.server
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /etc/pki/taskd/generate taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pki/taskd/generate taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-readable /etc/pki/taskd/generate 0750L
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/pki/taskd/generate 0750L
taskd.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pki/taskd/generate
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.ca taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /etc/pki/taskd/generate.ca taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-readable /etc/pki/taskd/generate.ca 0750L
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/pki/taskd/generate.ca 0750L
taskd.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pki/taskd/generate.ca
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/taskd taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/taskd taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/taskd 0750L
taskd.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/systemd/system/taskd.service
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/taskd/config taskd
taskd.i686: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/taskd/config taskd
taskd.i686: E: non-readable /var/lib/taskd/config 0750L
taskd.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /var/lib/taskd/config 0750L
taskd.i686: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /var/lib/taskd/config
taskd.i686: E: script-without-shebang /var/lib/taskd/config
taskd.i686: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/taskd
taskd.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary taskdctl
taskd.i686: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/taskd/INSTALL
1 packages and 0 specfiles c
[Bug 1064817] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Soup - HTTP client/server library for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064817 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064817] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Soup - HTTP client/server library for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064817 --- Comment #5 from David Dick --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-HTTP-Soup Short Description: HTTP client/server library for GNOME Owners: ddick Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977122] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-cli - The grunt command-line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977122 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-grunt-cli-0.1.11-1.f |nodejs-grunt-cli-0.1.11-1.e |c20 |l6 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-grunt-cli-0.1.11-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-dockerfiles-0-0.3.git7753bdf.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968603] Review Request: nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended - Cross-platform (browser/NodeJS), non-blocking, handling of dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968603 Bug 968603 depends on bug 968604, which changed state. Bug 968604 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-joosex-simplerequest - Simple XHR request abstraction for Node.js https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 968604] Review Request: nodejs-joosex-simplerequest - Simple XHR request abstraction for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-joosex-simplerequest ||-0.2.2-4.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-02-20 02:00:18 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-joosex-simplerequest-0.2.2-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.fc18 |nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.el6 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-grunt-0.4.1-2.el6, nodejs-js-yaml-2.1.0-3.el6, nodejs-underscore-dot-string-2.3.1-3.el6, nodejs-argparse-0.1.15-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 427738] Review Request: dropbear - SSH2 server and client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427738 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- Package Change Request == Package Name: dropbear New Branches: epel7 Owners: buytenh cicku itamarjp -- 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 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- URL should be http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/cdbs.git 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 1058196] Review Request: php-goutte - A simple PHP web scraper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058196 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet --- [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: outdated documentation [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: Latest version is packaged. Not blocker. == 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 384191] Review Request: libdiscid - A library for creating MusicBrainz DiscIDs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=384191 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Christopher Meng --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libdiscid New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 384191] Review Request: libdiscid - A library for creating MusicBrainz DiscIDs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=384191 --- Comment #16 from Alex Lancaster --- (In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #14) > Any comments from the Fedora maintiners? All good with me! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 967253] Review Request: goaccess - Apache Log Analyzer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967253 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Christopher Meng --- Package Change Request == Package Name: goaccess New Branches: epel7 Owners: echevemaster 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 1065624] Review Request: sfk - The Swiss File Knife File Tree Processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065624 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- sfk-1.7.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sfk-1.7.0-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065624] Review Request: sfk - The Swiss File Knife File Tree Processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065624 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065624] Review Request: sfk - The Swiss File Knife File Tree Processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065624 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- sfk-1.7.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sfk-1.7.0-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065624] Review Request: sfk - The Swiss File Knife File Tree Processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065624 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- sfk-1.7.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sfk-1.7.0-1.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 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 Adam Williamson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Adam Williamson --- Fixes look good. Review 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 1065490] Review Request: perl-BSSolv - A new approach to package dependency solving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065490 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- (In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #1) > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) > or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 21104640 bytes in 19 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > This one should probably block the review. As the examples are large, we > should probably split them into a -examples subpackage or something. I didn't notice that 21MB file in there! The examples have been sub-packaged. > - "Package functions as described": I gave this a pass, but as this is > principally for OwnCloud's benefit, can you please backport this commit: > https://github.com/google/google-api-php-client/commit/ > c6949531d2399f81a5e15caf256f156dd68e00e9 , as without it, OC will not work > entirely correctly. Backported > - A few files without explicit licenses: given the 'tarball-wide' LICENSE > file I think we don't need to block on this, but one of us should file an > issue upstream pointing out that the follow files are missing license blocks: > > examples/index.php > examples/templates/base.php > src/Google/Collection.php > src/Google/Model.php > src/Google/Service/Exception.php > tests/bootstrap.php I'm sleepy and off to bed. I can file this later on unless you want to take care of it today. Update diff: https://github.com/siwinski/rpms/commit/27e5a66e93d8e57308e6587425b8007202dc2094 Spec URL: https://raw2.github.com/siwinski/rpms/27e5a66e93d8e57308e6587425b8007202dc2094/php-google-apiclient.spec SRPM URL: http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-google-apiclient-1.0.3-0.2.beta.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 1065562] Review Request: python-scp - Scp module for paramiko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065562 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski --- Sorry for the sloppy mistakes. Fixed again. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-scp Short Description: Scp module for paramiko Owners: orion Branches: f20 f19 epel7 el6 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 1065562] Review Request: python-scp - Scp module for paramiko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065562
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng ---
Please:
%{__python} --> %{__python2} (otherwise the %globals are useless)
Leave a blank line between each changelog.
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 1065562] Review Request: python-scp - Scp module for paramiko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065562 --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski --- Hmm, didn't catch that in my testing. Added a BR on paramiko. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6550256 Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-scp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-scp-0.7.1-3.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 1067041] Review Request: autodocksuite - AutoDock is a suite of docking tools to study protein-ligand interaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067041
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng ---
1. doc package doesn't have the strong reason to
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
So please remove this line.
2. cd autodock
%configure
make %{?_smp_mflags}
cd %{_builddir}/src/autogrid
%configure
make %{?_smp_mflags}
My optimization:
pushd autodock
%configure
make %{?_smp_mflags}
popd
pushd autogrid
%configure
make %{?_smp_mflags}
popd(this popd is optional)
3. %install
cd autodock
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
cd %{_builddir}/src/autogrid
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Mine:
make -C autodock install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
make -C autogrid install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058196] Review Request: php-goutte - A simple PHP web scraper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058196
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski ---
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #3)
> MUST
>
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/php/Goutte
Wow... ooops!
> [!]: outdated documentation
> => CHANGELOG is obviously outdated
> - drop it as it have no value
Dropped
> - request upstream to drop it or update it
https://github.com/fabpot/Goutte/issues/133
> SHOULD
>
> [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
> => %{?dist}
:( How many times am I going to make that mistake?
> [!]: Latest version is packaged.
> => version 1.0.5 (19 days ago) prefered than git snapshot
Updated to latest version 1.0.5
Update diff:
https://github.com/siwinski/rpms/commit/ae10e782de32256bde6cff92d8d267482cb5f4b0
Spec URL:
https://raw2.github.com/siwinski/rpms/ae10e782de32256bde6cff92d8d267482cb5f4b0/php-goutte.spec
SRPM URL:
http://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-goutte-1.0.5-1.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 1058195] Review Request: php-gitter - Object oriented interaction with Git repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058195
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski ---
THANKS for the review!
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #3)
> [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
> => %{?dist}
I'll fix that after initial import.
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: php-gitter
Short Description: Object oriented interaction with Git repositories
Owners: siwinski
Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7
InitialCC:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #36 from Christopher Meng --- You'd better start a new bug and mark this one as duplicate, since this bug's owner is Nicolas. Also, please remove all group tags, not only the one in the main package. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066027] Review Request: csdiff - Non-interactive tools for processing code scan results in plain-text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066027 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #3) > I have fixed CMakeLists.txt so that it does not compress man pages. > > Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/csdiff/csdiff.spec > SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/csdiff/csdiff-1.0.2-1.el6.src.rpm Please do the modernization via comment 2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 456138] Review Request: edb - Debugger based on the ptrace API and QT4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456138 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2008-11-28 12:16:32 |2014-02-19 22:18:34 --- Comment #37 from Christopher Meng --- Please don't reopen the bug when requesting new branch. -- 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 1065306] Review Request: pyxtrlock - The X transparent screen lock rewritten in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065306 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921
Adam Williamson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||awill...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|awill...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Adam Williamson ---
Taking the review, and doing it. Detailed notes and improvement suggestions
below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 21104640 bytes in 19 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
This one should probably block the review. As the examples are large, we should
probably split them into a -examples subpackage or something.
- "Package functions as described": I gave this a pass, but as this is
principally for OwnCloud's benefit, can you please backport this commit:
https://github.com/google/google-api-php-client/commit/c6949531d2399f81a5e15caf256f156dd68e00e9
, as without it, OC will not work entirely correctly.
- A few files without explicit licenses: given the 'tarball-wide' LICENSE file
I think we don't need to block on this, but one of us should file an issue
upstream pointing out that the follow files are missing license blocks:
examples/index.php
examples/templates/base.php
src/Google/Collection.php
src/Google/Model.php
src/Google/Service/Exception.php
tests/bootstrap.php
- Package naming: I'll just note here that the logic behind the name is that
it's the Composer name - see
https://github.com/google/google-api-php-client/blob/master/composer.json#L2
and https://packagist.org/packages/google/apiclient . I agree with Shawn that
this is a reasonable naming approach for v1.x.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp
/php-google-apiclient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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]: 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]:
[Bug 1065562] Review Request: python-scp - Scp module for paramiko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065562 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to James Slagle from comment #3) > I've reviewed the updated spec (thanks!). I'm doing an unofficial review. > > I have a question for other reviewers. The %check in the spec downloads > paramiko from pypi since it's listed in the install_requires in setup.py. Is > this Ok, or does it violate: > > Must: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. > > I wasn't sure if this meant %build specifically, or the entire rpmbuild. > > If so, python-paramiko should be added to the BuildRequires as well so that > when %check is run, pypi isn't used. Yes, you are right. And because koji doesn't have the internet connection, the check will fail. Orion, please fix all issues based on James pointed out, and then I will review 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 979665] Review Request: perl-Data-MessagePack - MessagePack serialising/deserialising
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979665 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Data-MessagePack New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku Just found comment 9 was a mistake... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #38 from Jeremy Newton --- Whopps, thanks again ;) I re-uploaded the files, same links. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #37 from Richard Shaw --- Looks like a little type in the spec: # likely still dereferences type-punned pointers CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fno-strict-aliasing" CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fno-strict-aliasing" # fix unused-direct-shlib-dependency error: export LDFLAGS='-Wl,--as-needed" Gotta stick with one type of quotes on the LDFLAGS line :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #36 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #34) > Ok, one thing we need to fix, if you run rpmlint on the installed packages > it finds a BUNCH of "unused-direct-shlib-dependency" > > Which means: > $ rpmlint -I unused-direct-shlib-dependency > unused-direct-shlib-dependency: > The binary contains unused direct shared library dependencies. This may > indicate gratuitously bloated linkage; check that the binary has been linked > with the intended shared libraries only. > > If the build honors LDFLAGS then a quick solution is to use: > export LDFLAGS='-Wl,--as-needed" > just before configure. Good catch, I must have missed this. I added the line, hopefully this fixes it; I haven't had time to build it yet. (In reply to noobie from comment #35) > I just tried your package and stumbled upon the following problem: > in wx-config line 34: wxconfig=$libdir/wx/config/gtk2-unicode-$version > will become wxconfig=$libdir/wx/config/gtk2-unicode-3.0 (for now) but the > package creates "gtk3-unicode-3.0" thereby the if-statement in line 40 > will always fail. (Maybe I just screwed it while building the package ?) No this is indeed a bug, thanks for catching this! :) Here's the new files: SPEC https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/wxGTK3.spec SRPM https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065562] Review Request: python-scp - Scp module for paramiko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065562
--- Comment #3 from James Slagle ---
I've reviewed the updated spec (thanks!). I'm doing an unofficial review.
I have a question for other reviewers. The %check in the spec downloads
paramiko from pypi since it's listed in the install_requires in setup.py. Is
this Ok, or does it violate:
Must: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
I wasn't sure if this meant %build specifically, or the entire rpmbuild.
If so, python-paramiko should be added to the BuildRequires as well so that
when %check is run, pypi isn't used.
Package Review
==
Issues
==
I believe the release needs to be bumped to 2 based on your new entry in the
changelog. rpmlint complained about inchorent version b/c of this.
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jslagle/rpmbuild/python-scp/review-python-
scp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
See my question at the top of this comment about this point...
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[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 pack
[Bug 1067015] Review Request: instack-undercloud - Install an OpenStack undercloud via python-instack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067015 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake --- James, Elements are installed in the wrong place. For an example check out: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/openstack-heat-templates/openstack-heat-templates.spec#L39 Header isn't aligned - possible mixing of spaces and tabs If your going to use a git commit without a tarball, please mark it properly in the spec file. For an example, see: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/openstack-heat-templates/openstack-heat-templates.spec#L7 Make sure to run the spec file, rpm file, and srpm file through rpmlint and fix any problems. I'll provide a more thorough review once you submit a new package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067002] Review Request: python-instack - installation tool for diskimage-builder style elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067002 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake --- James, I recommend hosting this on stackforge so you can use the CI system. This is relatively easy to setup. Only libraries should begin their package name with the python-* prefix The Release field should include the git short commit IIRC if you don't intend to use the upstream tagged tarball. (Doublecheck the packaging guidelines) Since you maintain it, I'd recommend just cutting a 0.0.2 version and using that for this package and drop the shortcommit entirely. Make sure to run the spec, RPM, and SRPM through rpmlint first. The rest looks good. I'll provide a more thorough review after the package is renamed. Regards, -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844753] Review request: python-django-typepadapp - A helper Django app for making TypePad applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844753 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- Package python-django-typepadapp-1.2.1-6.fc19: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-django-typepadapp-1.2.1-6.fc19' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2737/python-django-typepadapp-1.2.1-6.fc19 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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 986051] Review Request: dtv-scan-tables - Digital TV scan tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986051 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- Package dtv-scan-tables-0-4.20130713gitd913405.fc19, dvb-apps-1.1.2-6.1488.f3a70b206f0f.fc19: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing dtv-scan-tables-0-4.20130713gitd913405.fc19 dvb-apps-1.1.2-6.1488.f3a70b206f0f.fc19' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2711/dtv-scan-tables-0-4.20130713gitd913405.fc19,dvb-apps-1.1.2-6.1488.f3a70b206f0f.fc19 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067184] Review Request: os-apply-config - Configure files from cloud metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067184 --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake --- I'm was certain RPM doesn't parse requirements.txt and have confirmed it with Fedora engineering. Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067184] Review Request: os-apply-config - Configure files from cloud metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067184 --- Comment #3 from Zane Bitter --- BuildRequires are required, but I thought it picked up the Requires dependencies in requires.txt from setuptools automatically -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066629] Review Request: openstack-tripleo - OpenStack TripleO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066629 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake --- James, I haven't taken a look at the SRPM, but these problems pop out from the spec file. 1) Python packages need specific BuildRequires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires I'd add python-setuptools for good measure 2) The installation process is wrong. Please use the python installer to install packages. For an example, check out: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config.spec#L39 3) The git snapshotting used in the spec file is wrong and does not offer a seamless upgrade process for users. Please use a version of 0 and release of 0.1.snapshot.dist. For an example check out: com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/openstack-heat-templates/openstack-heat-templates.spec#L7 4) Alignment is likely a mix of tabs and spaces. Recommend sticking to tabs and aligning things on the nearest boundary that makes sense 5) the %files section is wrong. If something is commented out, that means the package doesn't work as you expect - recommend fixing. 6) Recommend %doc any LICENSE or README 7) did you run the spec file, SRPM, and RPM through rpmlint and fix the resulting problems? Regards -steve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 741529] Review Request: python-futures - Backport of the concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741529 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- python-futures-2.1.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-futures-2.1.6-1.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 1067184] Review Request: os-apply-config - Configure files from cloud metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067184 --- Comment #2 from Steven Dake --- Zane, Packaging guidelines indicate the BuildRequires are necessary: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires I'm open to changes for the Summary and Description field. Charles any thoughts on improvements 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 1067216] New: Review Request: os-refresh-config - Tool to refresh OpenStack config changes to service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067216 Bug ID: 1067216 Summary: Review Request: os-refresh-config - Tool to refresh OpenStack config changes to service Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sd...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/raw/master/os-refresh-config/os-refresh-config.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-refresh-config/os-refresh-config-0.0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true Description: Tool to refresh OpenStack config changes to service. Fedora Account System Username: sdake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066176] Review Request: min-metadata-service - Client for EC2/OpenStack metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066176 --- Comment #4 from Colin Walters --- (In reply to Sandro Mathys from comment #3) > Using this source URL (and the tarball that comes from it) is clearly > preferred over using your self-created tarball unless there's good reasons > against it (which you also should add to the comment preceding the source > non-URL). I have generic infrastructure (in the Makefile.dist-packaging) for generating tarballs via "git archive" that I use for most of my projects. The approach above only works for Github - not all of my projects are 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 1066238] Review Request: python-trollius - A port of the Tulip asyncio module to Python 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066238 --- Comment #9 from Ian Wienand --- (In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #7) > Please change the Licence in the spec to "ASL 2.0" > Please bump the release in the spec and new srpm to -2 Done [1], thanks --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/ianw/python-trollius/master/python-trollius.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~iwienand/python-trollius/python-trollius-0.1.5-2.fc19.src.rpm Description: A port of the Tulip asyncio module to Python 2 Fedora Account System Username: iwienand [1] https://github.com/ianw/python-trollius/commit/7afcb0c1e3798b9ff76da7e92310a56d6b2fa8f7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067184] Review Request: os-apply-config - Configure files from cloud metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067184 Zane Bitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Zane Bitter --- It's tempting to reference OpenStack in the name (other than with just os-), although probably that would just be more confusing :/ Are those explicit Requires needed? I thought that they were added automatically when you use setuptools. The summary is not that descriptive. Could we have something like "Apply configuration from OpenStack Orchestration metadata" or "Guest configuration agent for OpenStack Orchestration"? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066359] Review Request: libgsystem - GIO-based library with Unix/Linux specific API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066359 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- libgsystem-2014.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgsystem-2014.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067200] New: Review Request: os-collect-config - Collect and cache metadta running hooks on changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067200 Bug ID: 1067200 Summary: Review Request: os-collect-config - Collect and cache metadta running hooks on changes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sd...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw2.github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-collect-config/os-collect-config-0.1.11-1.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true Description: Service to collect openstack heat metadata. Fedora Account System Username: sdake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066359] Review Request: libgsystem - GIO-based library with Unix/Linux specific API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066359 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062396] Review Request: rubygem-mizuho - Mizuho documentation formatting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062396
Troy Dawson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(tdaw...@redhat.co |
|m) |
--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson ---
Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-mizuho.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-mizuho-0.9.20-2.fc20.src.rpm
Good catch.
- I have removed %{gem_instdir}/asciidoc
- I have put asciidoc into requires
- I changed NATIVELY_PACKAGED from false to true via sed.
- I fixedup the gemspec to remove %{gem_instdir}/asciidoc, via sed.
I think we're all set.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067184] New: Review Request: os-apply-config - Configure files from cloud metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067184 Bug ID: 1067184 Summary: Review Request: os-apply-config - Configure files from cloud metadata Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sd...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/raw/master/os-apply-config/os-apply-config.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sdake/fedora-reviews/blob/master/os-apply-config/os-apply-config-0.1.12-1.fc20.src.rpm?raw=true Description: Configure files from cloud metadata Fedora Account System Username: sdake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067184] Review Request: os-apply-config - Configure files from cloud metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067184 Zane Bitter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbit...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbit...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048815] Review Request: RdRand - A library and a tool for the asm instruction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048815 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048815] Review Request: RdRand - A library and a tool for the asm instruction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048815 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048815] Review Request: RdRand - A library and a tool for the asm instruction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048815 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/RdRand-1.0.5-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065446] Review Request: hive - Hadoop-compatible data warehouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065446 --- Comment #1 from Pete MacKinnon --- Spec URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/hive/hive.spec SRPM URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/hive/hive-0.12.0-2.fc21.src.rpm Updated to add hive executable, shell scripts and conf files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #35 from John Morris --- Richard, did you get a response from Eric Smith on your Feb. 13th email? I sent an email asking about his plans for OCC/OCE on Feb. 9th (with you in the CC: list), and haven't heard back. Anything else blocking this? What's the next step? Shall I start 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 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.3-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.3-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065301] Review Request: python3-simplepam - Pure Python interface to the Pluggable Authentication Modules system on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065301 Leon Weber changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-02-19 16:14:11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.3-1.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 1065306] Review Request: pyxtrlock - The X transparent screen lock rewritten in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065306 Bug 1065306 depends on bug 1065301, which changed state. Bug 1065301 Summary: Review Request: python3-simplepam - Pure Python interface to the Pluggable Authentication Modules system on Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065301 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055799] Review Request: sbt - simple build tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 Will Benton changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Will Benton --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sbt Short Description: The simple build tool for Scala and Java projects Owners: willb Branches: 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 1065306] Review Request: pyxtrlock - The X transparent screen lock rewritten in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065306 --- Comment #5 from Leon Weber --- Spec URL: http://feynman.q-ix.net/rpm/pyxtrlock.spec SRPM URL: http://feynman.q-ix.net/rpm/pyxtrlock-0.2-3.fc19.src.rpm Added a .desktop file, since I figured a screen lock counts as a GUI application. Also, I’m sponsored now, so I only need a normal review and approval. The dependency is in rawhide and is making its way through F19/F20 testing right now, so there’re no more blockers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055799] Review Request: sbt - simple build tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055799 Robert Rati changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert Rati --- 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 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.2-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.2-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.2-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060920] Review Request: openni2 - OpenNI libraries for 3D-sensing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060920 Scott K Logan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #10 from Scott K Logan --- I was sponsored into the packaging group as a co-maintainer about a week ago, so this bug no longer blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Now awaiting approval. 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 818991] Review Request: evolution-tray - Tray plugin for evolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818991 as...@outlook.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||as...@outlook.com --- Comment #10 from as...@outlook.com --- i think it build fine with version 1.0, http://gnome.eu.org/cgit/evolution-tray/ but it doesn't seem to hide it when minimize nor does it maximize when it was click. in fact, it doesn't even seem to do anything other than place an icon in the tray... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062385] Review Request: colt - Java libraries for high performance scientific and technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062385 Robert Rati changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2014-02-19 12:52:36 --- Comment #5 from Robert Rati --- The licensing issues prevent this package from being included in Fedora. The independent aida package won't meet colt's needs either, so I am closing this review request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067041] Review Request: autodocksuite - AutoDock is a suite of docking tools to study protein-ligand interaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067041
--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Hi Cole,
Thanks for your comments.
(In reply to Cole Robinson from comment #3)
>
> Besides the noted rpmlint spelling errors and fsf address, there's also this
> minor one:
>
> autodocksuite.src:24: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 24, tab:
> line 1)
>
> In my .vimrc, I have: set listchars=tab:>. which shows hard tabs as
> visible, but that's totally up to you. I'd recommend being consistent in the
> spec at least.
Fixed it. Actually, vimrc is a good suggestion. I will add it.
>
> Couple other points:
>
> - I don't think triggering ldconfig is required, the package isn't
> installing any shared libraries.
Done!
>
> - autodoc/COPYING is duplicated between the packages. Just stick it in the
> base package, since -doc requires the base package. I'd also stick the
> README in the -doc package but it's up to you.
Done! README in -doc would be more appropriate.
>
> - In %build you have:
>
> export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}"
>
> Does that make a difference? The %configure macro should do that for you.
>
Fixed. That was from a older spec file. Sorry. :)
New SPEC URL:
http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/autodocksuite/autodocksuite.spec
New SRPM URL:
http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/autodocksuite/autodocksuite-4.2.5.1-4.fc20.src.rpm
My fedora-review on updated files (sorry, I did not do the [x] marks this time)
- http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/autodocksuite/review.txt
The older review.txt is here -
http://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/autodocksuite/ver2/review.txt
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065562] Review Request: python-scp - Scp module for paramiko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065562 --- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski --- Ah, good catch. Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-scp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-scp-0.7.1-2.fc20.src.rpm * Wed Feb 19 2014 Orion Poplawski - 0.7.1-2 - Add missing BR python-setuptools - Other minor cleanup - Add %%check -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067041] Review Request: autodocksuite - AutoDock is a suite of docking tools to study protein-ligand interaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067041
--- Comment #3 from Cole Robinson ---
The version 4.2.5.1 is fine, it comes from upstream and RPM can handle it for
comparisons.
Besides the noted rpmlint spelling errors and fsf address, there's also this
minor one:
autodocksuite.src:24: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 24, tab:
line 1)
In my .vimrc, I have: set listchars=tab:>. which shows hard tabs as visible,
but that's totally up to you. I'd recommend being consistent in the spec at
least.
Couple other points:
- I don't think triggering ldconfig is required, the package isn't installing
any shared libraries.
- autodoc/COPYING is duplicated between the packages. Just stick it in the base
package, since -doc requires the base package. I'd also stick the README in the
-doc package but it's up to you.
- In %build you have:
export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}"
Does that make a difference? The %configure macro should do that for you.
FYI I'm offline till Monday, sorry for bad timing. I'll follow up ASAP when I'm
back
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067041] Review Request: autodocksuite - AutoDock is a suite of docking tools to study protein-ligand interaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067041 Cole Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||crobi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|crobi...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Cole Robinson --- I'll take this -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.1-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066657] Review Request: python-summershum - A fedmsg consumer that extracts and stores hashes of source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066657 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.1-1.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 1067098] New: Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness-Env - Parsing harness related environmental variables where appropriate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067098 Bug ID: 1067098 Summary: Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness-Env - Parsing harness related environmental variables where appropriate Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-TAP-Harness-Env/trunk/perl-TAP-Harness-Env.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-TAP-Harness-Env/perl-TAP-Harness-Env-3.30-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module implements the environmental variables that Test::Harness for use with TAP::Harness. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc This package is intended for F-20 and EPEL-7 only. It provides a module (TAP::Harness::Env) that was introduced as part of the Test-Harness distribution in version 3.29 (already in Rawhide), but we have decided that it would be inappropriate to update the whole perl-Test-Harness package from 3.28 as shipped in F-20 and EL-7; see Bug #1018157 However, the TAP::Harness::Env module is a requirement of versions of Module-Build-Tiny after 0.028, and it is very desirable to have a recent version of this in F-20 and EPEL-7, as a growing number of upstream developers are using the Dist::Zilla::Plugin::ModuleBuildTiny module when building their releases, and this by default adds a build dependency on whatever version of Module::Build::Tiny is installed on the author's system (usually the most recent release). I have been asked a number of times to update this module in F-20 and EPEL-7 (Bug #1056343, Bug #1064689), and the introduction of a perl-TAP-Harness-Env package would allow me to do this. The idea for introducing this package came from upstream; see: https://github.com/Leont/dist-zilla-plugin-modulebuildtiny/issues/7 There is a precedent for this type of package: see Bug #450553 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-dockerfiles-0-0.3.git7753bdf.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-dockerfiles-0-0.3.git7753bdf.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 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-dockerfiles-0-0.3.git7753bdf.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-dockerfiles-0-0.3.git7753bdf.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 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066027] Review Request: csdiff - Non-interactive tools for processing code scan results in plain-text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066027 --- Comment #3 from Kamil Dudka --- I have fixed CMakeLists.txt so that it does not compress man pages. Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/csdiff/csdiff.spec SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/csdiff/csdiff-1.0.2-1.el6.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 1066026] Review Request: cscppc - A compiler wrapper that runs cppcheck in background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066026 --- Comment #7 from Kamil Dudka --- I have added an explanation why we link glibc statically. Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cscppc/cscppc.spec SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cscppc/cscppc-1.0.2-1.el6.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 1066029] Review Request: csmock - A mock wrapper for Static Analysis tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066029 --- Comment #3 from Kamil Dudka --- I have fixed spec file so that it does not compress man pages. Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/csmock/csmock.spec SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/csmock/csmock-1.0.2-1.el6.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 1066028] Review Request: cswrap - Generic compiler wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066028 --- Comment #2 from Kamil Dudka --- I have added an explanation why we link glibc statically. Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap.spec SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap-1.0.2-1.el6.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 1066842] Review Request: perl-Net-SMTPS - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::SMTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066842 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- Missing BRs: perl(IO::Socket::INET), lib/Net/SMTPS.pm:21 perl(IO::Socket::INET6), lib/Net/SMTPS.pm:18 perl(Net::SMTP), lib/Net/SMTPS.pm:13 perl(Socket), t/smtp.t:13 Missing runtime deps: perl(IO::Socket::INET) Again, the rest is alright. This is basically a clone of Net::POP3S :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065562] Review Request: python-scp - Scp module for paramiko
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065562 James Slagle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsla...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from James Slagle --- Hi, I'm doing an unofficial review as I'm seeking packager sponsorship. It looks like you're missing a BuildRequires on python-setuptools. The build in mock fails with: + /usr/bin/python setup.py build Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 4, in from setuptools import setup ImportError: No module named setuptools You need to add the following line to your spec file: BuildRequires: python-setuptools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066842] Review Request: perl-Net-SMTPS - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::SMTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066842 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066843] Review Request: perl-Net-POP3S - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::POP3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066843 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- Missing BRs: perl(IO::Socket::INET), lib/Net/POP3S.pm:21 perl(IO::Socket::INET6), lib/Net/POP3S.pm:18 perl(Net::POP3), lib/Net/POP3S.pm:13 perl(Socket), t/pop3.t:13 Missing needed runtime deps: perl(IO::Socket::INET) The rest is okay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1053222] Review Request: fedora-dockerfiles - Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- (In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #12) > Package review passed. Thanks Matt! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedora-dockerfiles Short Description: Example dockerfiles to assist standing up containers quickly Owners: lsm5 Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
