[Bug 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 --- Comment #7 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos --- Thanks. I've added a "-2" version that fixes the issues (including the compilation ones). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #4 from David Dick --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Net-POP3S Short Description: SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::POP3 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 1066842] Review Request: perl-Net-SMTPS - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::SMTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066842 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from David Dick --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Net-SMTPS Short Description: SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::SMTP 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 1066843] Review Request: perl-Net-POP3S - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::POP3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066843 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 1053110] Review Request: exo-font-family - Exo is a very complete font family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053110 --- Comment #3 from K.Prasad --- I'm sorry, my bad. Got mixed up with two requests. Below are the correct URLs: Spec URL : http://kprasad.net/Fonts/exo-font-family.spec SRPM URL : http://kprasad.net/Fonts/exo-font-family-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Thanks, Prasad -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1067859 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067859 [Bug 1067859] webkitgk3 crash detected in nuvola player testsuite -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978177] Review Request: birdfont - A editor for creating outline vector graphics and exporting fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978177 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- Sorry for the delay, I've packaged 0.33(now 0.34 is released) but haven't tested yet, I will post the SRPM later(Next week). If you find any bugs please feel free to submit them to upstream but not here :) -- 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 1012215] Review Request: codimension-parser - Fast and comprehensive parser for Codimension IDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012215 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2014-02-21 04:07:54 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Upstream choose to bundle more. CANTFIX. -- 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
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck:
GPL
---
csdiff-1.0.2/abstract-filter.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/abstract-filter.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/abstract-parser.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/abstract-parser.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/abstract-writer.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/abstract-writer.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/csdiff-core.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/csdiff-core.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/csdiff.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/csfilter.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/csfilter.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/csgrep.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/cshtml.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/cslinker.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/csparser.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/csparser.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/cssort.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/cswriter.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/cswriter.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/cwe-mapper.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/cwe-mapper.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/defect.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/deflookup.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/deflookup.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/defqueue.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/defqueue.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/gcc-parser.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/gcc-parser.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/html-writer.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/html-writer.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/instream.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/instream.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/json-parser.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/json-parser.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/json-writer.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/json-writer.hh
csdiff-1.0.2/make-srpm.sh
csdiff-1.0.2/pycsdiff.cc
csdiff-1.0.2/version.hh
Unknown or generated
csdiff-1.0.2/import-boost.sh
csdiff-1.0.2/tests/sync-diff.sh
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 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 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #17 from Christopher Meng --- PING. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000799] Review Request: ulatencyd - Daemon to minimize latency on a Linux system using cgroups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000799 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Whiteboard|NotReady| -- 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 1053110] Review Request: exo-font-family - Exo is a very complete font family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053110 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- You need a sponsor, sorry I can't help, hope you can do a sel introduction in -devel and someone can sponsor you. I give you an example of fonts package: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/alef-fonts.git/tree/ Please try to imitate it perfectly(macros, obsoleted lines like %clean section and so on) 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 1031342] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-freedreno - xorg ddx driver for snapdragon/adreno arm SoC's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031342 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kwiz...@gmail.com --- Comment #21 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- I can confirm that the usabily test has passed for this ddx driver with current fedora userspace. But the test device (ifc6410) still miss device tree hence fedora kernel support. I still wonder if the driver could be auto-selected for a given soc. Like what is hardcoded from the kernel in pci cases: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/hw/xfree86/common/xf86pciBus.c I'm going to test the latest patch (xa) with mesa 10.2 backported to 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 1056057] Review Request: dleyna-server - Service for interacting with Digital Media Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056057
--- Comment #4 from Debarshi Ray ---
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #3)
Thanks for the review!
> Looks good to me, just a small issue with the Source URL. As yaneti pointed
> out on IRC, the way to make the github URLs work (as recommended in the
> packaging guidelines) would be to use the git hash that the tag points to.
> Right now you are using the hash of the tag object; should be the hash that
> the commit points to.
>
> $ git show-ref --dereference v0.4.0
> 0e9d8bd48f80daea4f352a33ba1aa35af180dd46 refs/tags/v0.4.0
> 3fcae066b44195c187b5611acfd511b9a87850d0 refs/tags/v0.4.0^{}
>
> ^^ e.g. the 2nd hash here.
I see. The guidelines need to be updated in that case.
> This is just a minor issue and won't block the package from getting
> imported, but would be great if you could fix it so that 'spectool -g'
> starts working.
Fixed.
Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/dleyna-server.spec
SRPM: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/dleyna-server-0.4.0-3.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 1066029] Review Request: csmock - A mock wrapper for Static Analysis tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066029 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- 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 1056057] Review Request: dleyna-server - Service for interacting with Digital Media Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056057 Debarshi Ray changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Debarshi Ray --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dleyna-server Short Description: Service for interacting with Digital Media Servers Owners: rishi Branches: 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 1056057] Review Request: dleyna-server - Service for interacting with Digital Media Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056057 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- 1. autoreconf -f -i --> autoreconf -fiv 2. find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -delete Please append -print so we can track what files have been deleted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067445] Review Request: pyghmi - Python General Hardware Management Initiative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067445
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng ---
1. pyghmi URL:
https://github.com/stackforge/pyghmi
2. %{__python} --> %{__python2}
3. %{python_sitelib} --> %{python2_sitelib}
(In reply to James Slagle from comment #1)
> Hi, I'm doing an unofficial review.
Unofficial review doesn't mean that you can do the review carelessly.
> Python:
> [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
> [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
> provide egg info.
> [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns
Please remove the bundled egg.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 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 1064817] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Soup - HTTP client/server library for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064817 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Soup-0.01-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-HTTP-Soup-0.01-1.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 1066238] Review Request: python-trollius - A port of the Tulip asyncio module to Python 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066238
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Pádraig Brady ---
Ready for New package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
Don't forget the fedora-cvs ? flag.
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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/padraig/1066238-python-trollius/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[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.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, Pr
[Bug 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1066719] Review Request: octave-netcdf - A MATLAB compatible NetCDF interface for Octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066719
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/octave/packages/netcdf-1.0.2
/doc-cache
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= 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:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
netcdf/inst/nccreate.m
netcdf/inst/ncdisp.m
netcdf/inst/ncinfo.m
netcdf/inst/ncread.m
netcdf/inst/ncreadatt.m
netcdf/inst/ncwrite.m
netcdf/inst/ncwriteatt.m
netcdf/inst/ncwriteschema.m
netcdf/inst/private/format2mode.m
netcdf/inst/private/nc2octtype.m
netcdf/inst/private/ncloc.m
netcdf/inst/private/ncvarid.m
netcdf/inst/private/oct2nctype.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_attributes.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_constant.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_create.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_datatypes.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_high_level_interface.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_low_level_interface.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_ncwriteschema.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_ncwriteschema_chunking.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_ncwriteschema_group.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_ncwriteschema_unlim.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_scalar_variable.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_scalar_variable.m
netcdf/inst/test_netcdf.m
netcdf/src/__netcdf__.cc
Unknown or generated
netcdf/inst/import_netcdf.m
netcdf/inst/private/test_netcdf_type.m
netcdf/src/PKG_ADD.sh
netcdf/src/autogen.sh
netcdf/src/netcdf_constants.h
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 val
[Bug 1067445] Review Request: pyghmi - Python General Hardware Management Initiative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067445
--- Comment #5 from Lucas Alvares Gomes ---
Spec and SRPM updated:
Spec URL:
https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raw.github.com/agroup/pyghmi-rpm-spec-files/master/python-pyghmi-0.5.9-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: A pure python implementation of IPMI protocol.
Fedora Account System Username: lucasagomes
@Christopher Meng
1. 2. 3. done
bundled egg removed and also the {test-,}requirements.txt (I saw it looking at
openstackish packages that use pbr)
Thank you for the 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 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #18 from Vasiliy Glazov --- How you think should I am remove W: file-not-utf8 files or stay them as is because them from upstream? Soon I'll make 0.7.67 version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng --- Well, I always ping upstream about this and ask them to fix in the next version, and leave the issue as-is... You can convert them to utf8 but I think it's worthless to do that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #20 from Jérôme Martinez --- > How you think should I am remove W: file-not-utf8 files or stay them as is > because them from upstream? Sorry, I missed the comment about it. I modified the file (one "é" was present and it should not, changed to "e") in the upstream SVN and it is pure ASCII now, in next release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #21 from Vasiliy Glazov --- OK. I just created bugreport about it https://sourceforge.net/p/mediainfo/bugs/832/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #22 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/libmediainfo/master/libmediainfo.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/606/606/libmediainfo-0.7.67-1.fc21.R.src.rpm Updated to 0.7.67. Corrected license to BSD. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #23 from Jérôme Martinez --- about embedded libraries: - TinyXML-2: Debian decided to externalize it (they created a specific TinyXML-2 package based on a GIT version), so there is a build option " --with-libtinyxml2" if you want to prevent the build process to use the files in the source package. - md5.c: if you want to externalize it, I can add the same kind of option. Copyright info should be OK in all files now. Let me know if you still have issue with how the upstream package is created. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #24 from Vasiliy Glazov --- TinyXML-2 I already use system. Unicode?yes Using ZenLib? system Using libcurl? system Using libmms? no Using zlib? system Using md5? internal Using tinyxml2? system Create static lib? no Create shared lib? yes Option --with-libmd5 I try too, but it can't find MD5 in system. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067917] New: Review Request: sensible-utils - Utilities for sensible alternative selection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067917 Bug ID: 1067917 Summary: Review Request: sensible-utils - Utilities for sensible alternative selection Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/sensible-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/sensible-utils-0.0.9-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Utilities for sensible alternative selection Fedora Account System Username: smani Note: rpmlint will complain about sensible-utils.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/de/man1/sensible-editor.1.gz sensible-utils.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/fr/man1/sensible-editor.1.gz sensible-utils.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/es/man1/sensible-editor.1.gz I've filed an upstream bug about this, see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=739688 . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067917] Review Request: sensible-utils - Utilities for sensible alternative selection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067917 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1067869 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067869 [Bug 1067869] debchange executes sensible-editor which does not exist -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067917] Review Request: sensible-utils - Utilities for sensible alternative selection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067917 Denis Fateyev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|de...@fateyev.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Denis Fateyev --- Taken. As for the error you've mentioned, you can decode the files by yourself: %setup -q for file in ./man/de/man1/.1* ./man/fr/man1/.1* ./man/es/man1/.1*; do iconv -f latin1 -t utf8 < $file > $file.new mv -f $file.new $file done -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822328] Review Request: libmediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822328 --- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries See md5 exception. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067917] Review Request: sensible-utils - Utilities for sensible alternative selection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067917 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani --- This will only help for the french manpage, the other two are "Non-ISO extended-ASCII text" and need manual fixing AFAIK. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 550360] Review Request: dnstop - Displays information about DNS traffic on your network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550360 Denis Fateyev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Denis Fateyev --- If current Fedora maintainer doesn't mind, I'd like to add the package to EPEL. Package Change Request == Package Name: dnstop New Branches: el5 el6 epel7 Owners: konradm dfateyev InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063055] Review Request: rubygem-rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063055 --- Comment #1 from Mo Morsi --- *** Bug 1063056 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 1063056] Review Request: rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's kqueue, using FFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063056 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||mmo...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-02-21 07:48:18 --- Comment #1 from Mo Morsi --- Hey Nitesh, you submitted this one twice *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1063055 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063057] Review Request: rubygem-sprockets-helpers - Asset path helpers for Sprockets 2.x applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063057 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmo...@redhat.com Summary|Review |Review Request: |Request:sprockets-helpers - |rubygem-sprockets-helpers - |Asset path helpers for |Asset path helpers for |Sprockets 2.x applications |Sprockets 2.x applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 550360] Review Request: dnstop - Displays information about DNS traffic on your network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550360 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 550360] Review Request: dnstop - Displays information about DNS traffic on your network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550360 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1056057] Review Request: dleyna-server - Service for interacting with Digital Media Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056057 --- Comment #7 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 1056057] Review Request: dleyna-server - Service for interacting with Digital Media Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056057 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 1058196] Review Request: php-goutte - A simple PHP web scraper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058196 --- Comment #7 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 1058196] Review Request: php-goutte - A simple PHP web scraper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058196 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 1062920] Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol -amq-protocol is an AMQP 0.9.1 serialization library for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062920 --- Comment #4 from Mo Morsi --- Apologies, I misremembered and got it backwards, it should be included as %doc: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Review (see the line about the license file) Good catch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #5 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 1066842] Review Request: perl-Net-SMTPS - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::SMTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066842 --- Comment #5 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 1066842] Review Request: perl-Net-SMTPS - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::SMTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066842 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 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 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 1066843] Review Request: perl-Net-POP3S - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::POP3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066843 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 1066843] Review Request: perl-Net-POP3S - SSL/STARTTLS support for Net::POP3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066843 --- Comment #5 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 1056057] Review Request: dleyna-server - Service for interacting with Digital Media Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056057
--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember ---
-https://github.com/01org/%{version}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{version}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
+https://github.com/01org/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{version}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
Otherwise looks good to me! (And yes, I agree that the github URL guidelines
could use a overhaul.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068304] New: Review Request: perl-Digest-xxHash - xxHash Implementation For Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068304 Bug ID: 1068304 Summary: Review Request: perl-Digest-xxHash - xxHash Implementation For Perl Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: psab...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-Digest-xxHash/perl-Digest-xxHash.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-Digest-xxHash/perl-Digest-xxHash-1.02-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module provides both a functional and an OO interface to xxHash functions. xxHash is an extremely fast algorithm that claims to work at speeds close to RAM limits. Fedora Account System Username: psabata -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 --- Comment #3 from David Howells --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2) > If this is going to be packaged for Fedora branches only then first change > the spec to be compatible with current Fedora packaging guidelines. Can some of these be checked for by rpmlint? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mmo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mo Morsi --- Taking this one Some minor style issues: - In files list the spec dir, Gemfile, Rakefile, and gemspec should be marked as %doc - On same not marking files as %doc in the 'doc' subpackage is a bit redundant, though not against guidelines - Seem to be a bit of extraneous whitespace, consider tidying up Package does not build in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6556112 You are trying to use rspec in the %check section w/out listing that as a build requirement. Also I believe your going to need to list the eventmachine dependency as a build requirement so that the test suite fully functions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665
--- Comment #4 from David Howells ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2)
> 8) your make command should be
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
What about the additional flags?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063047] Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmo...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Mo Morsi --- Hey Nitesh, some comments (similar to em-socksify) - Gemfile, README, Rakefile, gemspec files should be marked as %doc - Please rm the .document and .rspec files at some point during the build process - Build fails again since you use rspec and assumably eventmachine is needed to run the test suite, yet neither are listed as Build Requirements on the package. - Consider removing the extraneous whitespace / blank lines. If you could fix these & successfully build the package via koji I'll give you the official review. Additionally if rspec / eventmachine are BuildRequirements for the other packages you submitted (noticed it was the case for eventmachine_httpserver as well) but aren't listed in the specs, please add them so as to tackle this issue across them all. 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 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665
--- Comment #5 from David Howells ---
(In reply to David Howells from comment #4)
> (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2)
> > 8) your make command should be
> > make %{?_smp_mflags}
>
> What about the additional flags?
Actually, I don't need -DSTUPIDCC if I don't have -Werror. The problem is that
there are places where the compiler can't tell if a variable is set or not and
so gives a warning, so I'll drop -Werror for now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 --- Comment #6 from David Howells --- Revised: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace-1.3.1-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796703] Review Request: yawn - Web-based CIM/WBEM browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796703 Michal Minar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mimi...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Michal Minar --- Package Change Request == Package Name: yawn New Branches: el6 el7 Owners: miminar jsafrane vcrhonek 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 550360] Review Request: dnstop - Displays information about DNS traffic on your network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550360 --- Comment #9 from Conrad Meyer --- EPEL is all yours :). -- 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 796703] Review Request: yawn - Web-based CIM/WBEM browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796703 --- Comment #8 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 796703] Review Request: yawn - Web-based CIM/WBEM browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796703 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 1062920] Review Request: rubygem-amq-protocol -amq-protocol is an AMQP 0.9.1 serialization library for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062920 --- Comment #5 from Achilleas Pipinellis --- Oh yeah, you're right I missed that page :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039138] Review Request: key-mon - A screencast utility that displays your keyboard and mouse status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039138 Ryan Lerch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Flags|needinfo?(rle...@redhat.com | |) | Last Closed||2014-02-21 09:40:53 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 --- Comment #8 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos --- http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/sniproxy-0.1-2.git0d71fca.fc20.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/sniproxy.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039138] Review Request: key-mon - A screencast utility that displays your keyboard and mouse status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039138 --- Comment #10 from Ryan Lerch --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9) > Please update to 1.17! :( I saw that before i Pushed the update, however looking at the release notes, it seems that update does not actaully *fix* anything, just add a few more themes, so i decided to push the package with 1.16, and work on the updating it soon. from the key-mon release notes: Jan 07, 2014 v 1.17 * Added hi-color icons (thanks e...@lanet.tv). * Added big-letters theme (thanks eko). * Bumped the version. regards, ryanlerch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 242311] Review Request: perl-Time-Duration - rounded or exact English expression of durations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242311 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk --- Comment #24 from Lubomir Rintel --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Time-Duration New Branches: epel7 Owners: lkundrak Unfortunately both Fedora and EL-6 maintainers are not willing to maintain EPEL packages as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo -- 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 242311] Review Request: perl-Time-Duration - rounded or exact English expression of durations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242311 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Mukundan Ragavan --- The doc file contains a user guide that is also available online (in the same form - pdf) and I just wanted to make it "optional". Also, rpmlint complains if I package it in the main 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 841648] Package Rename Review Request: rubygem-qpid_messaging - Ruby bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841648 Darryl L. Pierce changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Darryl L. Pierce --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-qpid_messaging New Branches: epel7 Owners: mcpierce -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060386] Review Request: pandorafms-agent - Pandora FMS Linux agent.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060386 --- Comment #9 from Sancho Lerena --- Wow. Thanks for the information, I will have a busy weekend working on all of these :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 242311] Review Request: perl-Time-Duration - rounded or exact English expression of durations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242311 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 242311] Review Request: perl-Time-Duration - rounded or exact English expression of durations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242311 --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841648] Package Rename Review Request: rubygem-qpid_messaging - Ruby bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841648 --- 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 841648] Package Rename Review Request: rubygem-qpid_messaging - Ruby bindings for the Qpid messaging framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841648 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 1068644] New: Review Request: python-croniter - Iteration for datetime object with cron like format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068644 Bug ID: 1068644 Summary: Review Request: python-croniter - Iteration for datetime object with cron like format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@draigbrady.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/python-croniter.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/python-croniter-0.3.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Iteration for datetime object with cron like format Fedora Account System Username: pbrady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031342] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-freedreno - xorg ddx driver for snapdragon/adreno arm SoC's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031342 --- Comment #22 from Rob Clark --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #21) > I can confirm that the usabily test has passed for this ddx driver with > current fedora userspace. But the test device (ifc6410) still miss device > tree hence fedora kernel support. just fwiw, the strategy I am taking is to just try to get all the userspace stuff in place upstream for now, and maintain non-fedora kernels. It is much easier for end users with (for example) an ifc6410 board to take a vanilla fedora userspace and only a custom kernel / boot.img, vs if we ask them to also recompile mesa, ddx, etc. But I'm hopeful that the upstream situation is improving for snapdragon.. the pace of patches upstream has picked up, and qcom now a linaro member, etc. > I still wonder if the driver could be auto-selected for a given soc. > Like what is hardcoded from the kernel in pci cases: > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/hw/xfree86/common/xf86pciBus.c fwiw, Thierry Reding had a recent patchset to support autoloading for non-pci devices, which looks like the right way to go long term. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-devel/2014-February/040671.html We could either cherry pick those back into fedora xserver, or take the lazy way for the short term and ask users to manually copy over an xorg .conf file. > I'm going to test the latest patch (xa) with mesa 10.2 backported to f20. btw, I found out about COPR the other day.. I'm sorta thinking it would be useful to have COPR that is something equivalent to xorg-edgers which could pick up latest mesa, ddx, etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #16 from Fedora Update System --- python-summershum-0.1.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-summershum-0.1.4-1.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 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 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-02-21 12:24:53 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068710] New: Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068710 Bug ID: 1068710 Summary: Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander 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/hda-verb.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/hda-verb-0.4-1.oj35.src.rpm Description: hda-verb is a tiny program that allows you to access the HD-audio codecs directly, allowing you to send commands (verbs) to them. For hda-verb to work you must be running a linux kernel with CONFIG_SND_HDA_HWDEP option enabled. 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 1068710] Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068710 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nonamed...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan --- I can take 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 1068710] Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068710 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068710] Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068710 --- Comment #2 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- 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 1068710] Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068710 --- Comment #3 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- somebody call me and said: There are another package provide hda-verb, it's alsa-tools. But it has 0.3 not 0.4 !! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068710] Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068710 --- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan --- So this package will cause a conflict then? I will do a detailed review later today ... (forgot to mention this in my first comment). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067664] Review Request: json4s - unified AST for Scala JSON parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067664 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068724] New: Review Request: python-ecdsa - ECDSA cryptographic signature library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068724 Bug ID: 1068724 Summary: Review Request: python-ecdsa - ECDSA cryptographic signature library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-ecdsa.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-ecdsa-0.10-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is an easy-to-use implementation of ECDSA cryptography (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm), implemented purely in Python, released under the MIT license. With this library, you can quickly create keypairs (signing key and verifying key), sign messages, and verify the signatures. The keys and signatures are very short, making them easy to handle and incorporate into other protocols. NOTE: The prime192v1 and secp224r1 curves are currently disabled. Fedora Account System Username: orion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068724] Review Request: python-ecdsa - ECDSA cryptographic signature library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068724 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1056292 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056292 [Bug 1056292] Update to 0.12.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068724] Review Request: python-ecdsa - ECDSA cryptographic signature library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068724 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1067697 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067664] Review Request: json4s - unified AST for Scala JSON parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067664 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- NOTE manual review, cause: Error: No Package found for sbt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067664] Review Request: json4s - unified AST for Scala JSON parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067664
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
Please, remove
from %install section
rm -rf %{buildroot}
use
cp -p $jar %{buildroot}/%{_javadir}/%{name}/$(echo $jar | cut -f5 -d/ | cut -f1
-d_).jar
cp -p $pom %{buildroot}/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-${shortname}.pom
or better
install -m 644 $jar %{buildroot}/%{_javadir}/%{name}/$(echo $jar | cut -f5 -d/
| cut -f1 -d_).jar
install -pm 644 $pom %{buildroot}/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-${shortname}.pom
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067664] Review Request: json4s - unified AST for Scala JSON parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067664
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in json4s-
javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]:
[Bug 1067664] Review Request: json4s - unified AST for Scala JSON parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067664
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo ---
ISSUES:
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
diff).
OTHERS:
can you fix these warning?
json4s.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Common AST for Scala JSON parsers
json4s.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 17)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- php-google-apiclient-1.0.3-0.2.beta.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-google-apiclient-1.0.3-0.2.beta.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 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- php-google-apiclient-1.0.3-0.2.beta.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-google-apiclient-1.0.3-0.2.beta.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 1062921] Review Request: php-google-apiclient - Client library for Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062921 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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
