[Bug 1069124] Review Request: python-netlib - Collection of network utility classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069124 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1070418 (python-mitmproxy) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070418 [Bug 1070418] Review Request: python-mitmproxy - An interactive SSL-capable intercepting HTTP proxy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070418] Review Request: python-mitmproxy - An interactive SSL-capable intercepting HTTP proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070418 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1069124 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069124 [Bug 1069124] Review Request: python-netlib - Collection of network utility classes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822327] Review Request: mediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822327 --- Comment #12 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/mediainfo/master/mediainfo.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/877/877/mediainfo-0.7.67-3.fc21.R.src.rpm 1. Scriptlet for icons added. 2. -m 644 removed. 3. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-July/008556.html desktop-file validation is only required for stuff under /usr/share/applications 4. Done. 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 1070125] Review Request: python-selenium - Python bindings for Selenium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070125 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Review:- + Package build successfully in rawhide mock + Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum) srpm tarball :108beb7aa97b974323bb75fdf350c3238ddfdafe1f0cb4723bcfbae71a6b6734 upstream tarball : 108beb7aa97b974323bb75fdf350c3238ddfdafe1f0cb4723bcfbae71a6b6734 - rpmlint on generated rpms gave output 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 44 errors, 0 warnings. + License of this package is ASL 2.0 which is given in source header. Suggestions: 1) rpmlint complained non-executable-script error. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries you want to fix this in %prep for required files as seen in rpmlint output. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #3 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Updated SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/httpress-1.1.0-2.hgd8c968cead5a.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/httpress.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 1069050] Review Request: xfce4-equake-plugin - Plugin for the XFCE panel which monitors earthquakes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069050
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or later).
Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
xfce4-equake-plugin-1.3.4/ltmain.sh
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
--
xfce4-equake-plugin-1.3.4/panel-plugin/equake.c
xfce4-equake-plugin-1.3.4/panel-plugin/equake_applet.c
xfce4-equake-plugin-1.3.4/panel-plugin/equake_dat.h
xfce4-equake-plugin-1.3.4/panel-plugin/equake_func.h
xfce4-equake-plugin-1.3.4/panel-plugin/equake_images.h
xfce4-equake-plugin-1.3.4/panel-plugin/equake_processdata.c
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in xfce4-equake-plugin
[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 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 1069988] Review Request: naemon - Open Source Host, Service And Network Monitoring Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069988 --- Comment #7 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Daniel Wittenberg from comment #4) Rawhide build successful now: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6574683 Since it looks like you made some changes to the spec-file for this build, please bump it's revision and provide me with the new spec / srpm for review / discussion. Many thanks in advance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com ---
Looks OK to me.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gems should require rubygems package
Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-mizuho-doc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
^ This is OK
- 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
^ This is OK
= 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:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 24 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/hanzz/1062396-rubygem-mizuho/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package
[Bug 528290] Review Request: yapet - Curses based password encryption tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528290 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: yapet 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 1059659] Review Request: python-aniso8601 - library for parsing dates in ISO8601 format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059659 --- Comment #6 from Jan Sedlák jsed...@redhat.com --- Ok, thanks, I have updated specfile and srpm to delete egg-info in %prep phase. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #4 from Alexandre Beche alexandre.be...@gmail.com --- It seems the package does not compile for EPEL5/6 so lets focus on ferora release. Before going through the main review, can I ask you the following small fixes: - Put the license in a LICENSE file instead of the sources (not mandatory but get the package a bit cleaner). - Remove the commit number from the spec file (including the Release line and the changelog). - Clean the changelog (keep only the newest line properly formated as described in [1]). Cheers, Alexandre [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070171] Review Request: tlssled - An evaluation tool for SSL/TLS (HTTPS) web server implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070171 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Thanks for the review, Christopher. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) 1. #!/usr/bin/env bash I'm not sure if we need to hack it to /bin/bash or /bin/sh. As far as I remember was this topic discussed 4-5 years ago. rpmbuild is picking env up so it will work. 2. install with -p. fixed 3. Mix using tab and space: fixed Updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tlssled.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tlssled-1.3-2.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 1070398] Review Request: netstat-monitor - A command line tool to monitor network connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070398 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- BR python-netaddr seems to be missing and I'm not sure whether this exists for Python3 in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070398] Review Request: netstat-monitor - A command line tool to monitor network connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070398 --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Argh, nevermind! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070641] New: Review Request: python-flock - Flock object for with statement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070641 Bug ID: 1070641 Summary: Review Request: python-flock - Flock object for with statement Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jdor...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jdornak.fedorapeople.org/python-flock.spec SRPM URL: http://jdornak.fedorapeople.org/python-flock-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Flock object uses fcntl.flock to lock (resp. unlock) file descriptor (fd) with operation (op) when entering (resp. leaving) runtime context related to it. Fedora Account System Username: jdornak -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070641] Review Request: python-flock - Flock object for with statement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070641 Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mstuc...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mstuc...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- 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 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de --- Thanks for the hints and sorry for not following the guidelines. Since I forgot to state it in the description: This is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. There is a successful koji build for this package: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576009 Is it OK to upload the SPEC and SRPM as attachment or should I rather put them somewhere else (e.g. fedorapeople.org)? @Michael: Thanks for the first check, I'll update the SPEC file accordingly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #8 from Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de --- Koji build for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576080 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070671] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra - Run Kwalitee tests including optional indicators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070671 Bug ID: 1070671 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra - Run Kwalitee tests including optional indicators 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-Test-Kwalitee-Extra/branches/fedora/perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra/perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra-0.2.0-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: CPANTS checks Kwalitee indicators, which is not quality but automatically-measurable indicators of how good your distribution is. Module::CPANTS::Analyse calculates Kwalitee but it is not directly applicable to your module test. CPAN has already had Test::Kwalitee for the test module of Kwalitee. It is, however, impossible to calculate prereq_matches_use indicator, because dependent module Module::CPANTS::Analyse itself cannot calculate prereq_matches_use indicator. It is marked as needs_db, but only limited information is needed to calculate the indicator. This module calculates prereq_matches_use by querying needed information from MetaCPAN. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #5 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Hello, On the LICENSE, I think that I should wait for upstream to add a license file instead rather than putting a license for him (he's been contacted, and such a file will probably be added on the next release). The commit number it is part of the sources downloaded from bitbucket so it cannot be removed. What I can remove is from it being part of the version. Would that address your issue? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #6 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/httpress.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 1070171] Review Request: tlssled - An evaluation tool for SSL/TLS (HTTPS) web server implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070171 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- There are mixed feelings about /usr/bin/env. /usr/bin/env as the dependency is less correct than a strict dependency on /usr/bin/bash (being the bash provided by Fedora). And if someone puts bash in a customised $PATH before /usr/bin, this may break the program and/or even make it insecure in case it's a vulnerable old bash. This also affects other script interpreters, see e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSystemPython An old attempt at prohibiting /usr/bin/env in shebang: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Script_Interpreters_%28draft%29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Beche alexandre.be...@gmail.com ---
Hello,
Please find below my informal review (note that it is my first one :) so I may
have been too strict or permissive on some points). I think it will answers
your two previous comments.
If you have doubt on any point, let me know.
Cheers,
Alex
__ = To be corrected
OK = Accepted
NA = Not Applicable
#
# MUST
#
[__] - rpmlint on source and binary rpm (report enclosed below)
rpmlint httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weighttp - weight
httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
httpress.src: W: invalid-url Source0: httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz
rpmlint httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
httpress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weighttp - weight
httpress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti
httpress.x86_64: W: no-documentation
httpress.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary httpress
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Could you please have a look to the following warning:
httpress.src: W: invalid-url Source0: httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz
rpmlint -I invalid-url
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
In addition (not mandatory but part of the SHOULD section), is there any chance
you to add doc/man page. I know it's probably not meaningful, but warning
should go away.
[OK] - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[__] - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
* Compilation flags does not seems to be correct
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags), I would
rather suggest:
CFLAGS=${CFLAGS:-%optflags} ; export CFLAGS ;
CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags} ; export CXXFLAGS ;
[OK] - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[OK] - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[OK] - 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 must be included in %doc.
[OK] - The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
86413b065d85b7d9e0af63a205465310853fe67dbfe8d15b92cdbd7fda17a642
httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz (srcrpm)
86413b065d85b7d9e0af63a205465310853fe67dbfe8d15b92cdbd7fda17a642
httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz
(https://bitbucket.org/yarosla/httpress/get/httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz)
[OK] - The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576209
f21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576227
f20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576231
[OK] - If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[OK] - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA] - The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[NA] - Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[OK] - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] - If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[NA] - A package must own all directories that it creates.
[OK] - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[OK] - Permissions on files must be set properly.
[OK] - Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] - The package must contain code, or permissable content
[NA] - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[NA] - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
[NA] - Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] - Development files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[OK] - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA] - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.
[OK] - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[OK] - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
#
# SHOULD
#
[__] - If the source
[Bug 1070702] New: Review Request: lmdb - memory-mapped key-value database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070702 Bug ID: 1070702 Summary: Review Request: lmdb - memory-mapped key-value database Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsta...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/lmdb/lmdb.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/lmdb/lmdb-0.9.11-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: LMDB could be used as fast replacement for BerkeleyBD. So far it is part of the OpenLDAP project, but not packaged in Fedora. Fedora Account System Username: jstanek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069882] Review Request: python-ironicclient - Ironic client for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069882 --- Comment #4 from Angus Thomas atho...@redhat.com --- Hi Steve, I've read through the package maintainer's docs, and built an updated package, based on your feedback so far. Spec URL: https://github.com/agroup/tripleo-rpm-spec-files/blob/master/ironicclient/python-ironicclient.spec SRPM URL: http://athomas.fedorapeople.org/ironic/fedora20/python-ironicclient-0.1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Thanks, Angus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1022551] Review Request: bouncycastle-pkix - CMS, PKCS, EAC, TSP, CMP, CRMF, OCSP for Bouncy Castle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022551 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- hi built bouncycastle-pkix 1.50 Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pkix.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069882] Review Request: python-ironicclient - Ironic client for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069882
--- Comment #5 from Angus Thomas atho...@redhat.com ---
Another update, adding support for %{__python2} and %{python2_sitelib} on EL6.
Spec URL:
https://github.com/agroup/tripleo-rpm-spec-files/blob/master/ironicclient/python-ironicclient.spec
SRPM URL:
http://athomas.fedorapeople.org/ironic/fedora20/python-ironicclient-0.1.2-3.fc20.src.rpm
Angus
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809 --- Comment #4 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- I've made that change in place (although all of the installed files are generated as part of the build). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #8 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Thanks. [__] - rpmlint on source and binary rpm (report enclosed below) rpmlint httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weighttp - weight httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti These are not intentional rather than spelling errors, so I've not corrected them. httpress.src: W: invalid-url Source0: httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz Now it includes the URL as well as a rule to rename the obtained file. httpress.x86_64: W: no-documentation httpress.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary httpress I've hacked a man page that I plan to send upstream. (the package is updated in-place of the old one) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #9 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- (btw. you may want to set the fedora-review flag to '?' so that the package is marked as under 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 528290] Review Request: yapet - Curses based password encryption tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528290 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 528290] Review Request: yapet - Curses based password encryption tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528290 --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1064576] Review Request: python-freezegun - Let your Python tests travel through time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064576 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1065678] Review Request: ghc-crypto-cipher-types - Generic cryptography cipher types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065678 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1064576] Review Request: python-freezegun - Let your Python tests travel through time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064576 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1065678] Review Request: ghc-crypto-cipher-types - Generic cryptography cipher types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065678 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1067098] Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness-Env - Parsing harness related environmental variables where appropriate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067098 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1067098] Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness-Env - Parsing harness related environmental variables where appropriate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067098 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1069124] Review Request: python-netlib - Collection of network utility classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069124 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1069124] Review Request: python-netlib - Collection of network utility classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069124 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1069139] Review Request: python-gerritlib -- Client library for accessing Gerrit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069139 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1069566] Review Request: python-gerrit-view -- A set of tools to query/view Gerrit patch reviews and their Zuul status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069566 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1069566] Review Request: python-gerrit-view -- A set of tools to query/view Gerrit patch reviews and their Zuul status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069566 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1069139] Review Request: python-gerritlib -- Client library for accessing Gerrit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069139 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1070436] Review Request: lancer - some statistics and probability classes for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070436 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1070436] Review Request: lancer - some statistics and probability classes for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070436 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1065446] Review Request: hive - Hadoop-compatible data warehouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065446 --- Comment #2 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/hive/hive.spec SRPM URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/hive/hive-0.12.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Rowed back to dist #1. Sorry for the confusion. Changes from review will be line-items in the first dist clog entry going forward. This version removes ivy download step. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #9 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7) Thanks for the hints and sorry for not following the guidelines. Is it OK to upload the SPEC and SRPM as attachment or should I rather put them somewhere else (e.g. fedorapeople.org)? (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #4) Please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors step 3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
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 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). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1055809-scalaz/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in scalaz-
javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright
[Bug 1057617] Review Request: python-django-haystack - Pluggable search for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057617
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
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)
Note: Maybe put docs/ in a -doc subpackage?
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Note: You have $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %make, please use %{buildroot}
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
Note: You need to BuildRequire python2-devel or python3-devel explicitely
- You have rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install. If this is not for RHEL5, please
remove this
[!]: python-django-haystack.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/python-django-haystack/docs/_build/.gitignore
[!]: python-django-haystack.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python-django-haystack/docs/_build/html/.buildinfo
[!]: python-django-haystack.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python-django-haystack/docs/.DS_Store
Note: Please remove these files
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to
[Bug 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243
--- Comment #4 from David Sugar dy...@gnutelephony.org ---
I found one bug with this package :)
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/tones.conf
is missing from %files...we have an (currently) unpackaged config file as part
of 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 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335 James Slagle jsla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsla...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from James Slagle jsla...@redhat.com --- Angus, the link for the SRPM Url is for python-tuskarclient, not openstack-ironic :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- ISSUES: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Please, open a bug to query upstream to include license text files. And remove cat EOF LICENSE This problem does not block the package, please do before import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020942] Package Request: wxGTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942 --- Comment #47 from Jeremy Newton alexjn...@gmail.com --- Thanks Jon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335 --- Comment #5 from James Slagle jsla...@redhat.com --- I suggest providing a raw download link to the spec if using github: Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/agroup/tripleo-rpm-spec-files/master/ironic/openstack-ironic.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/openstack-m/openstack-m/fedora-20/SRPMS/openstack-ironic-2014.1-b2.2.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 1060438] Review Request: python-pycalendar - iCalendar/vCard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060438 --- Comment #4 from Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) Drop rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT so that's no longer required for EPEL? Is that another side effect of using newer rpmbuild as Michael mentioned here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003089#c32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 --- Comment #23 from Jiri Pirko jpi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lnst Short Description: Framework for performing network tests Owners: rpazdera Branches: el6 el7 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 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 --- Comment #24 from Jiri Pirko jpi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lnst Short Description: Framework for performing network tests Owners: jirka Branches: el6 el7 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 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 --- Comment #25 from Jiri Pirko jpi...@redhat.com --- please ignore comment 23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- Thanks, Gil. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: scalaz Short Description: Functional programming for Scala 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 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1060438] Review Request: python-pycalendar - iCalendar/vCard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060438 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Cole Robinson from comment #4) (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) Drop rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT so that's no longer required for EPEL? Is that another side effect of using newer rpmbuild as Michael mentioned here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003089#c32 No, drop this line is harmless. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070702] Review Request: lmdb - memory-mapped key-value database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070702 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067098] Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness-Env - Parsing harness related environmental variables where appropriate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067098 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067098] Review Request: perl-TAP-Harness-Env - Parsing harness related environmental variables where appropriate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067098 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-TAP-Harness-Env-3.30-3.fc20,perl-Module-Build-Tiny-0.035-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-TAP-Harness-Env-3.30-3.fc20,perl-Module-Build-Tiny-0.035-1.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 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 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 1070171] Review Request: tlssled - An evaluation tool for SSL/TLS (HTTPS) web server implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070171
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
So please use sed to replace the shebang line;
Also, these contain tabs still:
Name:tlssled
Version:1.3
Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:An evaluation tool for SSL/TLS (HTTPS) web server implementations
License:GPLv3+
URL:http://www.taddong.com/en/lab.html
Source:http://www.taddong.com/tools/TLSSLed_v%{version}.sh
BuildArch:noarch
Requires: sslscan
Requires: openssl
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #6 from James Slagle jsla...@redhat.com --- just completed an unofficial review for openstack-ironic -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069882] Review Request: python-ironicclient - Ironic client for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069882 --- Comment #6 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Angus, Couple things First your patches are directory diffs, which is ok, but IMO it makes more sense to do the following: clone a copy of the ironicclient. Apply the 0001 patch git commit -a (Write a nice changelog) Apply the 0002 patch git commit -a write a nice changelog git format-patch -2 This will give you a tidy changelog in the patches and allow people to use git am to apply the patches. The first patch will look at the variable: REDHATIRONICCLIENTVERSION I believe this needs to be sed-ed into the file as is done in the nova client spec file. I recently did this for one of the os-*-* tools and it was necessary to do the sed, or the installed package doesn't work. The requirements for removing the pbr runtime requirement come from the openstack fedora developers - this is not something a typical python packager would do, so keep that in mind during further reviews of other people's packages. Just one minor nitpick as well, typically %doc goes at the top of the files section. Although this is not mandatory or documented, it is a typical common convention and since you need to remake packages, it might not hurt to fix that up. 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 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335
--- Comment #6 from James Slagle jsla...@redhat.com ---
Hi, I'm doing an unofficial review.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
Change the BR from python-devel to python2-devel
- Inconsistent alignment in spec file
- Looks like you got a request for more info on the fedora ticket request for
the static uid/gid
- Other issues in the comments below
= 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:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* Apache (v2.0).
6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jslagle/rpmbuild/1069335-openstack-ironic/review-openstack-
ironic/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
/usr/lib/systemd
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config %attr(-,root,ironic) /etc/ironic
recommend to add noreplace to the above %config. We don't want local
changes to these files overwritten by rpm do we?
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Use %{_unitdir} for /usr/lib/systemd/system
This requires adding BuildRequires: systemd per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Why are there runtime requirements on the following?
- swig
- pyflakes
These aren't in upstream ironic's requirements.txt, so they shouldn't be
needed.
Also need to remove the Requires on python-pbr. You'll have to provide a
patch to remove the runtime requirement. See our other OpenStack packages
for examples of this, (e.g. in glance there is a patch called
0002-Remove-runtime-dep-on-python-pbr.patch)
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Outstanding issues mentioned elsewhere in this review.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
[Bug 844753] Review request: python-django-typepadapp - A helper Django app for making TypePad applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844753 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-typepadapp-1.2.1-8.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-typepadapp-1.2.1-8.el6 -- 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 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- James, Have a read of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets Does anything pop out to you as a suggestion related to systemd? 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 1057617] Review Request: python-django-haystack - Pluggable search for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057617 --- Comment #4 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. I made the requested changes and also tweaked the spec to force a rebuild of the documentation. Spec: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/coprs/reviewboard2/python-django-haystack.spec SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/coprs/reviewboard2/python-django-haystack-2.1.0-4.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576858 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335 --- Comment #8 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- James, It is typically the packagers responsibility to diagnose and fix the rpmlint warnings, but as the package reviewer, you have an opportunity to provide guidance about what you would recommend changing to fix the rpmlint problems. Many of those errors and warnings cannot be ignored. If you as the package reviewer think they can be ignored, it is your responsibility to actually verify that is the case. It is the packagers responsibility to defend any decisions to ignore rpmlint warnings. One cool thing about being a packager is two brains working together 2 brains working separately. Please have a more detailed look at the rpmlint warnings and errors and comment in detail. 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 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066629] Review Request: openstack-tripleo - OpenStack TripleO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066629 --- Comment #7 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- James, The review isn't complete until the package is fedora-review+ :) But since you can't do that quite yet, please continue to drive the openstack-ironic review to conclusion. 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 1055809] Review Request: scalaz - functional programming for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055809 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scalaz-7.0.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scalaz-7.0.0-2.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 1070436] Review Request: lancer - some statistics and probability classes for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070436 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1070436] Review Request: lancer - some statistics and probability classes for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070436 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lancer-0.0.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lancer-0.0.1-1.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 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 --- Comment #13 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com --- Hi Salim, This package is really becoming a blocker for other gnome-pie bugs, can you please provide your input? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069444] Review Request: scala-stm - software transactional memory for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069444 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069444] Review Request: scala-stm - software transactional memory for Scala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069444 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- scala-stm-0.7-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scala-stm-0.7-2.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 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-02-27 10:25:10 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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: instack - installation tool for diskimage-builder style elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067002 --- Comment #5 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- James Please provide both SPEC and SRPM in each change, since fedora-review uses the bugzilla information to operate 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 1069399] Review Request: typesafe-config - configuration library for JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069399 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- typesafe-config-1.2.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/typesafe-config-1.2.0-2.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 1036393] Review Request: python3-openid - Python 3 port of the python-openid library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036393 Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python3-openid Short Description: Python 3 port of the python-openid library Owners: jdornak Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057454] Review Request: python-nagiosplugin - Python class library for writing Nagios (Icinga) plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057454 Alexandre Beche alexandre.be...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alexandre.be...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alexandre Beche alexandre.be...@gmail.com --- Hi, I am currently doing an informal review of your package. Do you plan to put your package under EPEL5/6 reposiroty? Cheers, Alexandre -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335 --- Comment #9 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Angus, I'd recommend having a read through this review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066629 as well as: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066633 then providing an unofficial review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067002 followed by providing an unofficial review of the other two bugs mentioned in this comment. Then we should be 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 1036390] Review Request: python-django-sekizai - Django Template Blocks with extra functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036390 Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com 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 1036382] Review Request: python-django-classy-tags - Class based template tags for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036382 Jakub Dorňák jdor...@redhat.com 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 1069399] Review Request: typesafe-config - configuration library for JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069399 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 --- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Ignoring per comment 24. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036393] Review Request: python3-openid - Python 3 port of the python-openid library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036393 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1036393] Review Request: python3-openid - Python 3 port of the python-openid library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036393 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335 --- Comment #10 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Angus, I just wanted to point out a couple pieces of documentation that you may or not be aware of. I would recommend blocking off about 1-2 hours and reading through them. The more experience you get reviewing, the less you will have to reference the documentation, but if its not documented, its probably not required. The package review process: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process The packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines This contain 32 separate wiki pages. I would recommend reading through them so you know where to find information in future packaging efforts. The python-specific guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python 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 1070559] Review Request: urbanlightscape - Photo filter for dynamic lighting and exposure correction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070559 Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nonamed...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- This software looks interesting to me. I will 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 1062396] Review Request: rubygem-mizuho - Mizuho documentation formatting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062396 Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-mizuho Short Description: Mizuho documentation formatting tool Owners: tdawson 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 1069023] Review Request: fifechan - C++ GUI library designed for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069023 --- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- Does this package build for you? Can you please do a koji scratch build? From the build log (fedora-review) Processing files: fifechan-0.1.1-1.fc21.x86_64 606 error: File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fifechan-0.1.1-1.fc21.x86_64/usr/lib64/libfifechan*.so.* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
