[Bug 1075027] Review Request: nodejs-method-override - Provides faux HTTP method support for Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075027 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1003338 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003338 [Bug 1003338] nodejs-connect-2.14.1 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075047] Review Request: nodejs-multiparty - A multipart/form-data parser for Node.js which supports streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075047 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1003338 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003338 [Bug 1003338] nodejs-connect-2.14.1 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege seperation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 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 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege seperation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 --- 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 1074102] Review Request: rpm-ostree - Commit RPMs to an OSTree repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074102 --- 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 1074412] Review Request: nodejs-reduce-component - An array reduce component for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074412 --- 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 1074412] Review Request: nodejs-reduce-component - An array reduce component for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074412 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 1074102] Review Request: rpm-ostree - Commit RPMs to an OSTree repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074102 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 1074414] Review Request: nodejs-cookiejar - A simple, persistent cookie jar system for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074414 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 1074414] Review Request: nodejs-cookiejar - A simple, persistent cookie jar system for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074414 --- Comment #6 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 1074416] Review Request: nodejs-component-emitter - An event emitter component for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074416 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 1074416] Review Request: nodejs-component-emitter - An event emitter component for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074416 --- 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 1074515] Review Request: passenger - Passenger Ruby web application server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074515 --- Comment #4 from Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com --- Thanks for your check. I will fix the problems you have found. I've asked FPC about libeio vs. libeio :) https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/403 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074969] Review Request: perl-Config-Generator - rpm containing global variables used by the Config::Generator modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074969 --- Comment #2 from Alexandre Beche alexandre.be...@gmail.com --- Hello, Does it works now? Cheers, Alex -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060906] Review Request: nss_wrapper - A wrapper for the user, group and hosts NSS API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060906 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: nss_wrapper |Review Request: nss_wrapper |- A wrapper for uiser, |- A wrapper for the user, |group and hosts NSS API |group and hosts NSS API -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege separation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: uid_wrapper |Review Request: uid_wrapper |- A wrapper for privilege |- A wrapper for privilege |seperation |separation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074985] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL Database Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074985 Filip Andres fi...@andresovi.net 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 1074985] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL Database Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074985 --- Comment #1 from Filip Andres fi...@andresovi.net --- Name OK, package builds and works, spec file is pleasure to read. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073794] Review Request: qt5-qt3d - Qt3D (and QtQuick3D) for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073794 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) Summary|Review Request: Qt3D (qt5) |Review Request: qt5-qt3d - ||Qt3D (and QtQuick3D) for ||Qt5 Alias||qt5-qt3d --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- cleanup/fix summary (to match pkg %name and %summary), mark blocking qt-reviews tracker Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074129] Review Request: perl-Compress-LZF - Extremely light-weight Lempel-Ziv-Free compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074129 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074985] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL Database Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074985 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Thank you, sir! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-epgsql Short Description: Erlang PostgreSQL Database Client Owners: filabrazilska lkundrak Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 814458] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814458 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Flags|fedora-review? | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069616] Review Request: jenkins - An extendable open source continuous integration server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069616 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1025904] Review Request: solr - Ultra-fast Lucene-based Search Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025904
--- Comment #11 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Some files are licensed with BSD type licenses but spec license type is
only ASL 2.0. These mostly look to be coming from lucene, so the resolution
to the bundling issue could take care of this. However, there is one
file that has an MIT license:
solr-4.7.0/solr/contrib/map-reduce/src/java/org/apache/solr/hadoop/AlphaNumericComparator.java
- This package seems to be bundling lucene. If this is a modified version of
lucene then a FPC exception will be needed. If not, please unbundle lucene
and build against the native lucene package.
= 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.
[!]: 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, MIT/X11 (BSD like), Apache
(v2.0) BSD (3 clause), Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause), BSD (3 clause),
BSD (2 clause), *No copyright* Apache (v2.0). 158 files have unknown
license.
Some files are licensed under BSD style or BSD like licenses
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
This package looks to have a bundled version of lucene.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 409600 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
Will wait until bundling issue is resolved before verifying functionality
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package
[Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- According to the FAQ both license texts need to be included if it's the LGPL v3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade Since probably not all developers are aware of that, once a project is found that only includes the LGPL v3 terms, a bug report would be justified. Sort of following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [...] fparser_gmpint.hh includes files from gmp-devel, Can't confirm. I only see subdir includes and C++ stdlib: $ grep \#include fparser/* -R fparser/fparser_gmpint.hh:#include fparser.hh fparser/fparser_gmpint.hh:#include mpfr/GmpInt.hh fparser/fparser.hh:#include string fparser/fparser.hh:#include vector fparser/fparser.hh:#include iostream fparser/fparser.hh:#include complex fparser/fparser_mpfr.hh:#include fparser.hh fparser/fparser_mpfr.hh:#include mpfr/MpfrFloat.hh fparser/fpaux.hh:#include fptypes.hh fparser/fpaux.hh:#include cmath fparser/fpaux.hh:#include mpfr/MpfrFloat.hh fparser/fpaux.hh:#include mpfr/GmpInt.hh fparser/fpaux.hh:#include complex fparser/fptypes.hh:#include fpconfig.hh fparser/fptypes.hh:#include cstring fparser/fptypes.hh:#include map fparser/fptypes.hh:#include vector fparser/fptypes.hh://#include fpaux.hh fparser/mpfr/GmpInt.hh:#include iostream fparser/mpfr/MpfrFloat.hh:#include iostream What do you think? It's not a big issue. Either add the Requires or not would work. In my opinion, currently it would be cleaner, if no such dependencies were added. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege separation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- uid_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uid_wrapper-1.0.1-3.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 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege separation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 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 1074985] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL Database Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074985 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 1074985] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL Database Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074985 --- 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 728302] Review Request: pjproject - Libraries written in C language for building embedded/non-embedded VoIP applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728302 --- Comment #74 from Dale Macartney dbmacart...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Anthony Messina from comment #73) I was wondering if your patch for the FSF address was submitted upstream to pjproject? I ask because it appears like they updated the COPYING file in their source, but not the header files. I mailed the guys at pjsip a little while ago about the FSF errors and they have corrected the license upsteam. This was prior to 2.2 being released so I presume it should be resolved soon(ish) in a future release if it hasn't been corrected already. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069616] Review Request: jenkins - An extendable open source continuous integration server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069616 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jenkins Short Description: An extendable open source continuous integration server Owners: msrb Branches: 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 1074129] Review Request: perl-Compress-LZF - Extremely light-weight Lempel-Ziv-Free compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074129 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- URL and Source0 are usable. Ok. Source archive is original (SHA-256: 571389c9ab62d9d0dbae479460d8c2b5132de7467990198532b9f4845b9ecfe4). Ok. XS code presents, architecture dependent package is Ok. Summary verified from LZF.pm. Ok. Description verified from LZF.pm.Ok. TODO: The description is non-descriptive. It talks about bundling (that will not be true in Fedora) and about free for commercial usage (that should go into license). I'd like to see instead of these statements something useful like `this is Perl binding to LZF compression library'. Perl code license verified from COPYING. FIX: Bundled LZF sources (lzf_c.c, lzfP.h, lzf_c_best.c) are licensed under (BSD or GPLv2+). This must be declared in the License tag too. Or unbundle the code. FIX: Unbundle the LZF library (lzf_c.c, lzfP.h, lzf_c_best.c) and use system implementation (liblzf). Or obtain exception from Fedora Packaging Committee https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries. Build-time dependencies are Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Compress-LZF.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Compress-LZF-3.7-1.fc21.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Compress-LZF-3.7-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm perl-Compress-LZF.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory perl-Compress-LZF.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory perl-Compress-LZF.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-Compress-LZF/COPYING.GNU 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Compress-LZF-3.7-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Mar 11 14:59 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Compress -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4777 Aug 25 2013 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Compress/LZF.pm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Mar 11 14:59 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Compress drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Mar 11 14:59 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Compress/LZF -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot23696 Mar 11 14:59 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Compress/LZF/LZF.so drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Mar 11 14:59 /usr/share/doc/perl-Compress-LZF -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 244 Jun 1 2010 /usr/share/doc/perl-Compress-LZF/COPYING -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6111 Jun 1 2010 /usr/share/doc/perl-Compress-LZF/COPYING.Artistic -rw-r--r--1 rootroot17998 Jun 1 2010 /usr/share/doc/perl-Compress-LZF/COPYING.GNU -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4650 Aug 25 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-Compress-LZF/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4691 Aug 25 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-Compress-LZF/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3758 Mar 11 14:59 /usr/share/man/man3/Compress::LZF.3pm.gz File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Compress-LZF-3.7-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libperl.so.5.18()(64bit) 1 perl(DynaLoader) 1 perl(Exporter) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.2) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Compress-LZF-3.7-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Compress::LZF) = 3.7 1 perl-Compress-LZF = 3.7-1.fc21 1 perl-Compress-LZF(x86-64) = 3.7-1.fc21 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Compress-LZF-3.7-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F21 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6621625). Ok. Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please correct the `FIX' items, and provide new spec file. Resolution: NOT approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074714] Review Request: joomla - Joomla! is an award-winning open source CMS for building powerful websites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074714 --- Comment #4 from Dale Macartney dbmacart...@gmail.com --- Thanks Peter I've removed the shared libraries and linked to existing php packages, as well as moved web content to /usr/share/joomla SPEC: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/joomla/joomla.spec SRPM: http://dbmacartney.fedorapeople.org/joomla/joomla-3.2.3-1.fc20.src.rpm koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6621795 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074639] Review Request: nodejs-ansistyles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074639 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Hrcka thr...@redhat.com --- New spec srpm remove dot at the end of summary srpm: http://humaton.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-ansistyles-0.1.3-3.fc20.src.rpm spec: http://humaton.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-ansistyles.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 1074985] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL Database Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074985 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-11 10:41:12 --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Imported and built. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #16 from Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #15) It's not a big issue. Either add the Requires or not would work. In my opinion, currently it would be cleaner, if no such dependencies were added. I've removed the dependencies. I've updated the SPEC file in-place, the new SRPM can be found at http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser-4.5.1-3.fc20.src.rpm. A koji build can be found at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6621823 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074639] Review Request: nodejs-ansistyles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074639 Maros Zatko mza...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Maros Zatko mza...@redhat.com --- rpmlint now seems to be reasonably happy too. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|674008 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 [Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1069257 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 [Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074639] Review Request: nodejs-ansistyles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074639 Tomas Hrcka thr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Tomas Hrcka thr...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-ansistyles Short Description: Functions that surround a string with ansistyle codes so it prints in style Owners: humaton 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 1075037] Review Request: nodejs-vhost - Virtual domain hosting middleware for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075037 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? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075012] Review Request: nodejs-merge-descriptors - A Node.js module to merge objects using descriptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075012 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? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074916] Review Request: python-crypto2.6 - Cryptography library for Python Description :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074916 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rb...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Only two minor issues: - There is a Buildroot defined and a %clean section. Unless you are planning to build for el6, neither of these are needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074916] Review Request: python-crypto2.6 - Cryptography library for Python Description :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074916 --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ralph Bean from comment #1) Only two minor issues: - There is a Buildroot defined and a %clean section. Unless you are planning to build for el6, neither of these are needed. Pardon, I meant el5 there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069616] Review Request: jenkins - An extendable open source continuous integration server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069616 --- Comment #6 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 1069616] Review Request: jenkins - An extendable open source continuous integration server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069616 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 1074639] Review Request: nodejs-ansistyles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074639 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 1074639] Review Request: nodejs-ansistyles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074639 --- Comment #6 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 598058] Review Request: maven-docck-plugin - Maven Documentation Checker Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598058 --- Comment #16 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- I asked the maintainers of this an a number of other packages on 2014-02-17 about their plans for EPEL 7. Of the maven-docck-plugin maintainers, the package owner (huwang) did not reply, while the co-maintainer (mizdebsk) said: I don't have any plans for adding any of these packages to EPEL. -- 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 1074969] Review Request: perl-Config-Generator - rpm containing global variables used by the Config::Generator modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074969
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Alexandre Beche from comment #2)
Does it works now?
Yes, it does.
Some comments on your package:
* Package fails to build:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/bin/yacg
/usr/share/man/man1/yacg.1.gz
You need to add
%{_bindir}/yacg
%{_mandir}/man1/yacg*
or similar to %files
* Except of the Require: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT*), all Requires: perl(*)
should all be removed from the spec.
RPM automatically generates the necessary Requires: itself.
* Unless you plan to support epel 6, you can tighten up the spec-file by
removing many anachronims from the spec (%clean, rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT,
BuildRoot:, %defattr, etc.).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075037] Review Request: nodejs-vhost - Virtual domain hosting middleware for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075037
--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com ---
I dont see any problems.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
--- License is mentioned in README.md file in the sources.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
--- Explained in the spec file.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are
[Bug 1075037] Review Request: nodejs-vhost - Virtual domain hosting middleware for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075037 Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074969] Review Request: perl-Config-Generator - rpm containing global variables used by the Config::Generator modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074969 --- Comment #4 from Alexandre Beche alexandre.be...@gmail.com --- Done, I uploaded the new spec. I do need the EPEL5 compat. Cheers, Alex -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075012] Review Request: nodejs-merge-descriptors - A Node.js module to merge objects using descriptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075012
--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com ---
Looks good to me.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
--- License is mentioned in README.md.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-merge-descriptors-0.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
[Bug 1075012] Review Request: nodejs-merge-descriptors - A Node.js module to merge objects using descriptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075012 Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075037] Review Request: nodejs-vhost - Virtual domain hosting middleware for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075037 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-vhost Short Description: Virtual domain hosting middleware for Node.js and Connect Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075012] Review Request: nodejs-merge-descriptors - A Node.js module to merge objects using descriptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075012 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-merge-descriptors Short Description: A Node.js module to merge objects using descriptors Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075012] Review Request: nodejs-merge-descriptors - A Node.js module to merge objects using descriptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075012 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 1075012] Review Request: nodejs-merge-descriptors - A Node.js module to merge objects using descriptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075012 --- 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 1075037] Review Request: nodejs-vhost - Virtual domain hosting middleware for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075037 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 1075037] Review Request: nodejs-vhost - Virtual domain hosting middleware for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075037 --- 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 970416] Review Request: mingw-taglib - Audio Meta-Data Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970416 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ulat...@yahoo.com Flags||needinfo?(ulat...@yahoo.com ||) --- Comment #3 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Hi, this review seems to be stalled, as you (Steve) have not responded to my comments for 1 month. Following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_ responding I will close this bug in a week if there is no further response. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 880036] Review Request: drupal7-webform_paypal - The Webform Paypal module sends the user to Paypal to complete a payment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880036 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- There are new guidelines regarding Drupal 7 packages that have been approved since you originally submitted this package. Please review the new guidelines and make sure your package conforms to them: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Drupal7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075049] Review Request: nodejs-raw-body - Get and validate the raw body of a readable stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075049 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1074916] Review Request: python-crypto2.6 - Cryptography library for Python Description :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074916 --- Comment #3 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com --- Removed those: Spec URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-crypto2.6.spec SRPM URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-crypto2.6-2.6.1-2.el6.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069871] Review Request: akka - JVM actor toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069871
Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
Issues:
===
- Please add a comment re: tests being skipped in the spec
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Please provide a comment as to why tests are not run. Looks like missing
deps.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]:
[Bug 1075049] Review Request: nodejs-raw-body - Get and validate the raw body of a readable stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075049
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking:
[Bug 1075049] Review Request: nodejs-raw-body - Get and validate the raw body of a readable stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075049 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075047] Review Request: nodejs-multiparty - A multipart/form-data parser for Node.js which supports streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075047 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1075047] Review Request: nodejs-multiparty - A multipart/form-data parser for Node.js which supports streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075047 --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- This appears to have a dependency (run time, not just build time) on stream-counter which you don't seem to have filed a request for currently. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075047] Review Request: nodejs-multiparty - A multipart/form-data parser for Node.js which supports streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075047
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
I'm getting two test failures, running with npm installed
dependencies:
1) standalone test-issue-36:
Error: exited with code 8
at ChildProcess.anonymous
(/home/tom/rpm/BUILD/package/test/test.js:49:33)
at ChildProcess.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:98:17)
at Process.ChildProcess._handle.onexit (child_process.js:797:12)
2) standalone test-issue-5:
Error: exited with code 8
at ChildProcess.anonymous
(/home/tom/rpm/BUILD/package/test/test.js:49:33)
at ChildProcess.EventEmitter.emit (events.js:98:17)
at Process.ChildProcess._handle.onexit (child_process.js:797:12)
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Failed due to install failure related to missing dependency on
stream-counter module.
[!]: Unpackaged doc file
The README is not being included in the built package.
= 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
[Bug 1075040] Review Request: nodejs-batch - Asynchronous batch module with concurrency control and progress reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075040 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1075049] Review Request: nodejs-raw-body - Get and validate the raw body of a readable stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075049 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-raw-body Short Description: Get and validate the raw body of a readable stream Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075218] New: Review Request: pam_ldap2krb - password migration tool ldap to kerberos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075218 Bug ID: 1075218 Summary: Review Request: pam_ldap2krb - password migration tool ldap to kerberos Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kazimsarik...@sanaldiyar.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://git.sanaldiyar.com/gitweb.cgi/pam_ldap2krb.git/blob/HEAD:/pam_ldap2krb.spec SRPM URL: http://srcrepo.sanaldiyar.com/repoview/pam_ldap2krb.html Description: Password migration pam module for ldap to ldap+kerberos authentication system. Passwords will be created in kerberos if user name and password are validated with existing ldap server. A configuration file is /etc/pam_ldap2krb.conf extended description is here: https://git.sanaldiyar.com/gitweb.cgi/pam_ldap2krb.git/blob_plain/HEAD:/README Fedora Account System Username: kazimsarikaya Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6621924 Hi, I am Kazim. It is my first package for contributing fedora. Hence i need a sponsor. Thanks for all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075218] Review Request: pam_ldap2krb - password migration tool ldap to kerberos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075218 Kazım SARIKAYA kazimsarik...@sanaldiyar.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075040] Review Request: nodejs-batch - Asynchronous batch module with concurrency control and progress reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075040
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file
[Bug 1075047] Review Request: nodejs-multiparty - A multipart/form-data parser for Node.js which supports streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075047 --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #1) This appears to have a dependency (run time, not just build time) on stream-counter which you don't seem to have filed a request for currently. Ah sorry. I'd already packaged it but forgot to add it to my list of reviews to open. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075040] Review Request: nodejs-batch - Asynchronous batch module with concurrency control and progress reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075040 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- You might want to consider adding History.md to the %doc but other than that it looks good, package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075218] Review Request: pam_ldap2krb - password migration tool ldap to kerberos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075218 Kazım SARIKAYA kazimsarik...@sanaldiyar.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kazimsarik...@sanaldiyar.co ||m Version|20 |rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075036] Review Request: nodejs-static-favicon - Favicon serving middleware with caching for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075036 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075219] New: Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075219 Bug ID: 1075219 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jamieli...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/connect/nodejs-stream-counter.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/connect/SRPMS/nodejs-stream-counter-0.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075219] Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075219 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews), ||1075047 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075047 [Bug 1075047] Review Request: nodejs-multiparty - A multipart/form-data parser for Node.js which supports streaming -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075040] Review Request: nodejs-batch - Asynchronous batch module with concurrency control and progress reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075040 --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/connect/nodejs-batch.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/connect/SRPMS/nodejs-batch-0.5.0-2.fc21.src.rpm * Tue Mar 11 2014 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 0.5.0-2 - add History.md Thanks Tom! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075219] Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075219 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1075040] Review Request: nodejs-batch - Asynchronous batch module with concurrency control and progress reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075040 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-batch Short Description: Asynchronous batch module with concurrency control and progress reporting Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075047] Review Request: nodejs-multiparty - A multipart/form-data parser for Node.js which supports streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075047 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1075219 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075219 [Bug 1075219] Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074916] Review Request: python-crypto2.6 - Cryptography library for Python Description :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074916 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- APPROVED! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075218] Review Request: pam_ldap2krb - password migration tool ldap to kerberos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075218 Kazım SARIKAYA kazimsarik...@sanaldiyar.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075036] Review Request: nodejs-static-favicon - Favicon serving middleware with caching for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075036
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Needs to own /usr/share/nodejs-static-favicon
= 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/nodejs-static-favicon
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/nodejs-static-favicon
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run
[Bug 1028743] Review Request: hans - IP over ICMP tunneling solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Hello, Christoper. Thanks for the comments. %changelog * Tue Mar 11 2014 Pavel Alexeev pa...@hubbitus.info - 0.4.3-3 - Drop all sysvinit support because it now MUST NOT be present in new packages (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript?rd=Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_addition_to_systemd_unit_files). - Change user creation procedure, move in base package. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6622750 Spec changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/4e1c066a0a0ff81571276ec43676466a6fd0cbf2 Spec: https://raw.github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/4e1c066a0a0ff81571276ec43676466a6fd0cbf2/SPECS/hans.spec Srpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora20/hans/hans-0.4.3-3.fc21.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 1028743] Review Request: hans - IP over ICMP tunneling solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- All issues addressed except 5. I prefer leave that slash on my oiunt of view it looks more like traditional path. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075219] Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075219
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-stream-counter-0.2.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
[Bug 1075219] Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075219 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075218] Review Request: pam_ldap2krb - password migration tool ldap to kerberos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075218 --- Comment #1 from Kazım SARIKAYA kazimsarik...@sanaldiyar.com --- A rawhide koji build is also available: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6622780 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075035] Review Request: nodejs-serve-static - Middleware for serving static files for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075035 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1069871] Review Request: akka - JVM actor toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069871 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- Thanks, Rob! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: akka Short Description: JVM actor toolkit 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 1075036] Review Request: nodejs-static-favicon - Favicon serving middleware with caching for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075036
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/connect/nodejs-static-favicon.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/connect/SRPMS/nodejs-static-favicon-1.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
* Tue Mar 11 2014 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 1.0.0-2
- own {_datadir}/{name} directory
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075219] Review Request: nodejs-stream-counter - Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075219 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-stream-counter Short Description: Keeps track of how many bytes have been written to a stream Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075035] Review Request: nodejs-serve-static - Middleware for serving static files for Node.js and Connect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075035
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Test install failed due to dependency on unpackaged send module.
= 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See:
