[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress & benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos --- Package Change Request == Package Name: httpress New Branches: f20 Owners: nmav -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress & benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #17 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos --- Thank you Adrien. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315
--- Comment #2 from Praveen Kumar ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[!]: 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:
"Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/prkumar/rpmbuild/1078315-python-pyramid-
mako/licensecheck.txt
[prkumar@dhcp201-104 pyramid_mako-1.0a2]$ licensecheck LICENSE.txt
LICENSE.txt: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
[prkumar@dhcp201-104 pyramid_mako-1.0a2]$ licensecheck COPYRIGHT.txt
COPYRIGHT.txt: UNKNOWN
As per setup.py author mentioned 'BSD-derived' in license section.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 12 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: 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 n
[Bug 1078074] Review Request: perl-Set-Tiny - Simple sets of strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078074 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Set-Tiny-0.01-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Set-Tiny-0.01-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078074] Review Request: perl-Set-Tiny - Simple sets of strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078074 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078074] Review Request: perl-Set-Tiny - Simple sets of strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078074 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Set-Tiny-0.01-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Set-Tiny-0.01-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078327] Review Request: github2fedmsg - Pubsubhubbub app that rebroadcasts GH events over fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) --- *** Bug 1078336 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078327 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327 [Bug 1078327] Review Request: github2fedmsg - Pubsubhubbub app that rebroadcasts GH events over fedmsg -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078336] Review Request: github2fedmsg - Pubsubhubbub app that rebroadcasts GH events over fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078336 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||panem...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-03-19 23:09:41 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1078327 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078327] Review Request: github2fedmsg - Pubsubhubbub app that rebroadcasts GH events over fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com Depends On||1078315 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 [Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1052040] Review Request: xtv - A file manager for the Linux console/xterm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052040 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- xtv-1.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Fedora fonts special interest group changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org | Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- glyphicons-halflings-fonts-3.1.0-2.20140211git728067b.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 --- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) > Could you list the missing dependencies here? Sure, they are: nodejs-archiver nodejs-gzip-js nodejs-testswarm nodejs-load-grunt-tasks nodejs-shelljs nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify → nodejs-grunt-contrib-clean → nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal → nodejs-chalk → nodejs-ansi-styles → nodejs-has-color → nodejs-strip-ansi → nodejs-maxmin → nodejs-pretty-bytes → nodejs-gzip-size → nodejs-concat-stream → nodejs-zlib-browserify → js-zlib nodejs-grunt-contrib-watch nodejs-grunt-bowercopy nodejs-grunt-compare-size nodejs-grunt-git-authors nodejs-grunt-jscs-checker nodejs-grunt-jsonlint These are also tracked on the FESCo change page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/jQuery#js-jquery.2A_BuildRequires There you'll see a number of them are already being worked on. :-) > Thanks (BTW seems js-jquery1 failed on fedora-20-i386.) Yeah, seems to have been a tranisent error with the npm registry. (This is why we can't use it for Fedora proper. ;-) I resubmitted it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Great to see some movement on the jquery packaging. :-) (In reply to T.C. Hollingsworth from comment #0) > This is an experimental package that does not yet meet Fedora standards. It > uses npm to install build dependencies to work around ones missing from the > distribution. However, the package is otherwise fully built during the > rpmbuild process and the binary RPM is identical to what would be produced > by a proper spec. Could you list the missing dependencies here? > Please use it to test dependent packages. It is also available in this copr: > http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/patches/js-future Thanks (BTW seems js-jquery1 failed on fedora-20-i386.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069335] Review Request: openstack-ironic - Management and provisioning of physical machines for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069335 --- Comment #20 from Steven Dake --- Angus, I would recommend splitting up the api and conductor into separate packages. All the OpenStack packaging behaves in this way. For an example of how it is done take a look at the nova or heat repos in fedpkg. (fedpkg clone openstack-heat). If you think this is too big a task to take on, we can approve as is, but I suspect someone will have to go in and rework that part of the packaging, so we might as well get it out of the way now. The reason for separate packages is the api may be installed separately from the engine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066672] Review Request: openstack-tripleo-image-elements - OpenStack TripleO Image Elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066672 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Steven Dake --- Comment #11 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 1067002] Review Request: instack - installation tool for diskimage-builder style elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067002 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Steven Dake --- James, I'm not really sure to be honest. I guess we will just have to let the github issue pass. Comment #12 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 1066629] Review Request: openstack-tripleo - OpenStack TripleO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066629 Steven Dake changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #25 from Steven Dake --- Comment #24 package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw --- I need to check if this one is affected but several of his projects bundle the library xmlrpcpp... Well, kind of... Upstream is pretty much dead and he has altered it quite a bit to suit his purposes BUT he bundles is within several of his projects. He doesn't really want to support as a separate library, which I understand so I've been working on him to see what we can do but haven't found a suitable solution. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722966] Review Request: mydumper - A high-performance multi-threaded backup toolset for MySQL and Drizzle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722966 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski --- Ping? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078588] New: Review Request: ts - Task Spooler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078588 Bug ID: 1078588 Summary: Review Request: ts - Task Spooler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jmrenou...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.jmrenouard.fr/repo/ts.spec SRPM URL: http://www.jmrenouard.fr/repo/generic/sources/ts-0.7.4-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Task Spooler is a Unix batch system where the tasks are executed run one after the other. The amount of jobs to run at once can be set at any time. Each user in each system has his own job queue. The tasks are run in the correct context (that of en-queue) from any shell/process, and its output/results can be easily watched. It is very useful when you know that your commands depend on a lot of RAM, a lot of disk use, give a lot of output, or for whatever reason it's better not to run them all at the same time, while you want to keep your resources busy for maximum benefit. Its interface allows using it easily in scripts. Fedora Account System Username: jmrenouard rpmlint seems ok on SRPMS, RPMS and SPEC file. $ rpmlint /var/www/html/repo/ts.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress & benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 Adrien Devresse 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 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress & benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282
--- Comment #16 from Adrien Devresse ---
Legend:
X -> valid
! -> Invalid
N∕A -> not concerned
[X]: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weighttp -> weighty,
weightily, weightless
httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
httpress.src:39: E: files-attr-not-set
httpress.src:40: E: files-attr-not-set
httpress.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
httpress.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
httpress.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
httpress.src: W: no-%clean-section
httpress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weighttp -> weighty,
weightily, weightless
httpress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings
-> Error and warning concern only EPEL5/6. If you confirm me you don't
target EPEL, this is fine
[X]: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[X]: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[X]: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[X]: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
-> BSD
[X]: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
[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 must be included in %doc.[4]
[X]: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[X]: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[X]: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
86413b065d85b7d9e0af63a205465310853fe67dbfe8d15b92cdbd7fda17a642
httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64/httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz
86413b065d85b7d9e0af63a205465310853fe67dbfe8d15b92cdbd7fda17a642 1.1.0.tar.gz
[X]: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
rawhide : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6653211
[N/A]: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[X]: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[N/A]: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[N/A]: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[N/A]: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[N/A]: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[X]: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. [13]
[X]: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
[X]: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. [15]
[X]: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
-> see comments
[X]: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[N/A]: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[X]: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present. [18]
[N/A]: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
[N/A]: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
[N/A]: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must requ
[Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #32 from Michael Schwendt --- What has changed is that two of the installed headers are wrong (= I copied all the names from the topdir instead of checking that three of them should not be installed). That's wrong, especially since the two gmp/mpfr headers could not be included anyway because of a missing subdir: Cmake based: $ rpmls -p fparser-devel-4.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm |grep inc drwxr-xr-x /usr/include/fparser -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fparser.hh -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fpaux.hh -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fpconfig.hh -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fptypes.hh -> fpaux.hh, fptypes.hh, fpconfig.hh are internal headers only Autotools based: $ rpmls -p fparser-devel-4.5.1-6.fc20.x86_64.rpm |grep inc drwxr-xr-x /usr/include/fparser -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fparser.hh -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fparser_gmpint.hh -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fparser_mpfr.hh -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/fparser/fpconfig.hh -> fpconfig.hh is an internal header only -> fparser_*.hh should not be installed if gmp/mpfr support is not compiled in > Do you want me to include the possibility to turn MPFR/GMP on/off? That depends on whether those features will be needed. Building with MPFR/GMP would make the library depend on libmpfr/libgmp, but using the extra headers would still be optional -> the case early in the review. Anyway, if you say MPFR/GMP is not needed, only the three headers ought to be dropped. Shipping internal headers is not a great idea. Eventually somebody would start including them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1001194] Review Request: cmpfit - A MINPACK-1 Least Squares Fitting Library in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001194 Marcin Wojdyr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||woj...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Marcin Wojdyr --- Just a thought: you may email upstream author to get the latest version of this code. I reported some bugs a year ago and he sent me newer version. Not much has changed, only a couple of bugfixes AFAIR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970420] Review Request: mingw-gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970420 --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák --- There were no response for more than one month. This ticket could be closed as stalled within one week as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #11 from Kazım SARIKAYA --- spec file: https://git.sanaldiyar.com/raw/linux!pam_ldap2krb.git/b1aa6a45aca6314e3f9e6f5053544d2745f1e2ee/pam_ldap2krb.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 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 Luis Bazan 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 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 --- Comment #4 from Luis Bazan --- Hi, I've checked and all seems to be ok by what I give my approval. Best Regards. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613
--- Comment #3 from Mosaab Alzoubi ---
All Fixed, except %makeinstall , It isn't built with: make install
DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
---
Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gtkdialog.spec
SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gtkdialog-0.8.3-2.oj35.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 977122] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-cli - The grunt command-line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977122 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078364 (js-sizzle) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 [Bug 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #102 from Rosen Diankov --- FYI, i'm planning to make a github repo for fparser and put all my cmake scripts on it so it installs easily on any linux/windows system. this will happen within a month. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078364 (js-sizzle) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 [Bug 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Depends On||977125, 977122, 977128 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977122 [Bug 977122] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-cli - The grunt command-line interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 [Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977128 [Bug 977128] Review Request: nodejs-grunt - The JavaScript Task Runner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078364 (js-sizzle) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 [Bug 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #31 from Till Hofmann --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #30) > For example, if you wanted to add the optional gmp/mpfr features, the patch > would need to be adjusted to compile the extra sources into the library > *and* install the extra headers, too. > > That's a big of a chicken'n'egg problem. Once you decide on which features > to include in the library, they cannot simply be turned on/off in the same > way as when using fparser as a copylib (with modifications to fpconfig.hh > possibly). True, and that's why they don't include any build system upstream. As you said earlier: > 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. But I don't see how this changed by using autotools? True, the build system doesn't support MPFR/GMP anymore, but didn't we decide to omit this feature anyway? I guess before, MPFR/GMP features were included if MPFR or GMP were installed on the build system, but that was rather uninentional (otherwise I would have kept the BuildRequires). > The attached patch is just an example of a basic framework to get started. OK, but I don't see what is missing exactly? Do you want me to include the possibility to turn MPFR/GMP on/off? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078469] Review Request: nodejs-gzip-size - Get the gzipped size of a string or buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078469
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues
==
- LICENSE should be removed
- %check can be enabled
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
https://github.com/sindresorhus/gzip-size/pull/1
[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.
[ ]: 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
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #101 from Michael Schwendt --- > http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/robotics/openrave-0.6.4-1.fc15.src.rpm That's a damaged file: $ rpm -Kv openrave-0.6.4-1.fc15.src.rpm openrave-0.6.4-1.fc15.src.rpm: Header SHA1 digest: OK (d2a244f989f76bc5dd02d95386a3d86b4473666e) MD5 digest: BAD Expected(7fcab7a1c091b5384736f7d98e6132a8) != (e948197b48aa8bf3705ecbd247b100f3) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078469] Review Request: nodejs-gzip-size - Get the gzipped size of a string or buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078469 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues
==
- LICENSE should be removed
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
https://github.com/sindresorhus/chalk/pull/14
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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 al
[Bug 1078472] Review Request: nodejs-has-color - Detects whether a terminal supports color
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078472
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues
==
It seems that the LICENSE file should be removed
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. 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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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).
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
https://github.com/sindresorhus/has-color/pull/4
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %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
[Bug 1078467] Review Request: nodejs-concat-stream - Writable stream that concatenates data and calls a callback with the result
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078467 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes --- 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 968607] Review Request: nodeunit - Easy asynchronous unit testing framework for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968607 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodeunit-0.8.6-3.fc19 |nodeunit-0.8.6-3.el6 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- nodeunit-0.8.6-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1078467] Review Request: nodejs-concat-stream - Writable stream that concatenates data and calls a callback with the result
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078467
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
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
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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-concat-stream-1.4.4-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-concat-stream-
[Bug 1020942] Package Request: wxGTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc19 |wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.el6 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System --- wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #100 from Michael Schwendt --- Has anyone ever before asked the FPC about a bundling exception for fparser? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Copylibs Alternatively, instead of building a shared libfparser (which may be problematic due to the nature of the code, e.g. the various defines in fpconfig.hh and optional features), it would be possible to build a fparser-source binary rpm, which packages like openrave may build-require and *copy* from (since fparser is a copylib). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #30 from Michael Schwendt --- Hmmm... I'm not so sure anymore whether it has been a good idea to approve the package. The attached patch is just an example of a basic framework to get started. It does not use all source files from the fparser-4.5.1.zip archive. For example, if you wanted to add the optional gmp/mpfr features, the patch would need to be adjusted to compile the extra sources into the library *and* install the extra headers, too. That's a big of a chicken'n'egg problem. Once you decide on which features to include in the library, they cannot simply be turned on/off in the same way as when using fparser as a copylib (with modifications to fpconfig.hh possibly). Oh, and after a second look, only the header file fparser.hh is needed in the fparser-devel package. fpaux.hh, fptypes.h and fpconfig.h are internal to the lib and not included by fparser.hh. > I wasn't sure whether to include the autotools files or only the generated > files. Regenerating them at the end of %prep (not the start of %build) is fine. The topic of including pregenerated files as a patch is more relevant to large projects where upstream maintains the autotools files, macros and makefiles. > Since we maintain the autotools files ourselves, we shouldn't get > into trouble with incompatible autotools versions. And as a last resort, it would be possible to fix the files and build a pregenerated tarball based on "make dist". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078474] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-styles - ANSI escape codes for colorizing strings in the terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078474
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues
==
- I don't understand why the pull request was closed... Maybe a mistake?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
MIT.
[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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
https://github.com/sindresorhus/ansi-styles/pull/4
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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.
[Bug 1078472] Review Request: nodejs-has-color - Detects whether a terminal supports color
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078472 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1078474] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-styles - ANSI escape codes for colorizing strings in the terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078474 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1078467] Review Request: nodejs-concat-stream - Writable stream that concatenates data and calls a callback with the result
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078467 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Looks OK. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
--- Comment #17 from Luis Pabon ---
Hi Michael, thank you for taking a look at the spec file again.
> What is the purpose of this section?
>
> | %if ( 0%{_for_fedora_koji_builds} )
> | Source0:
> https://github.com/lpabon/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.
> gz
> | %else
> | Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> | %endif
>
> Those two Source0 tags are equivalent (because the tarball name is the
> same), except that the former is preferred because it also contains the full
> download location.
-- Fixed
>
>
> > %check
> > make check
> >
> > %install
>
> The %check section is executed _after_ %install, so it ought to be placed
> after %install in the spec file. Btw, there are scenarios where a custom
> %check section needs to operate on buildroot contents, and the buildroot is
> empty before %install.
-- Fixed
>
>
> > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>
> Not true.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
-- Fixed
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1078463] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-clean - A Grunt plugin to clean files and folders
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078463
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1078458
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues
==
- tests might be enabled
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
MIT.
[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 9 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:
[-]: 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
[Bug 1078458] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal - Internal tasks for managing the grunt-contrib project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078458 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078463 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078463 [Bug 1078463] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-clean - A Grunt plugin to clean files and folders -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078471] Review Request: nodejs-strip-ansi - Strip ANSI escape codes (used for colorizing strings in the terminal)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078471 Tom Hughes 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 1078467] Review Request: nodejs-concat-stream - Writable stream that concatenates data and calls a callback with the result
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078467 --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- This is missing a buildrequire on npm(inherits). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977127] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-lib-legacyhelpers - Some old grunt helpers provided for backwards compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977127 Bug 977127 depends on bug 977126, which changed state. Bug 977126 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-grunt-lib-contrib - Common functionality shared across grunt-contrib tasks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977126 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977126] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-lib-contrib - Common functionality shared across grunt-contrib tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977126 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-19 15:32:59 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=505689 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078463] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-clean - A Grunt plugin to clean files and folders
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078463 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078458] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal - Internal tasks for managing the grunt-contrib project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078458 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 Bug 977125 depends on bug 977126, which changed state. Bug 977126 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-grunt-lib-contrib - Common functionality shared across grunt-contrib tasks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977126 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078458] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal - Internal tasks for managing the grunt-contrib project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078458
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
MIT.
[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 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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]: Spe
[Bug 1078471] Review Request: nodejs-strip-ansi - Strip ANSI escape codes (used for colorizing strings in the terminal)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078471 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- 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 1078471] Review Request: nodejs-strip-ansi - Strip ANSI escape codes (used for colorizing strings in the terminal)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078471
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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.
[-]: 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-strip-ansi-0.1.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-strip-ansi-0.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
nodejs-strip-ansi.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-
[Bug 1078458] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal - Internal tasks for managing the grunt-contrib project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078458 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1078463] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-clean - A Grunt plugin to clean files and folders
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078463 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1074420] Review Request: nodejs-supertest - A superagent driven library for testing HTTP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074420 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-19 15:25:42 --- Comment #9 from Jamie Nguyen --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=505685 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078371] Review Request: js-jquery1 - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library - for legacy browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078371 Bug 1078371 depends on bug 977141, which changed state. Bug 977141 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-grunt-init - Generate project scaffolding from a template https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977141 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977141] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-init - Generate project scaffolding from a template
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977141 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-19 15:25:22 --- Comment #13 from Jamie Nguyen --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=505683 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078467] Review Request: nodejs-concat-stream - Writable stream that concatenates data and calls a callback with the result
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078467 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/nodejs-concat-stream.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/SRPMS/nodejs-concat-stream-1.4.4-2.fc21.src.rpm * Wed Mar 19 2014 Jamie Nguyen - 1.4.4-2 - add missing BR: npm(inherits) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas --- Ping?! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078467] Review Request: nodejs-concat-stream - Writable stream that concatenates data and calls a callback with the result
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078467 Tom Hughes 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 1078465] Review Request: nodejs-pretty-bytes - Convert bytes to a human readable string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078465 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- All 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 1078465] Review Request: nodejs-pretty-bytes - Convert bytes to a human readable string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078465
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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.
[-]: 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-pretty-bytes-0.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-pretty-bytes-0.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
nodejs-pretty-bytes.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
n
[Bug 1078489] New: Review Request: python-nbxmpp - Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078489 Bug ID: 1078489 Summary: Review Request: python-nbxmpp - Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mschm...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://michich.fedorapeople.org/python-nbxmpp/python-nbxmpp.spec SRPM URL: http://michich.fedorapeople.org/python-nbxmpp/python-nbxmpp-0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: python-nbxmpp is a Python library that provides a way for Python applications to use Jabber/XMPP networks in a non-blocking way. It is a required dependency of the upcoming release of Gajim 0.16. Fedora Account System Username: michich -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008083] Review Request: hoogle - Haskell API Search
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008083 Bug 1008083 depends on bug 857992, which changed state. Bug 857992 Summary: Review Request: JQuery - Fast, concise library that simplifies how you use JavaScript https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857992 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1008083] Review Request: hoogle - Haskell API Search
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008083 T.C. Hollingsworth changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1078371 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078371 [Bug 1078371] Review Request: js-jquery1 - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library - for legacy browsers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977126] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-lib-contrib - Common functionality shared across grunt-contrib tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977126 Bug 977126 depends on bug 977137, which changed state. Bug 977137 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-zlib-browserify - Wrapper for zlib.js to allow for use in browsers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977137 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078469] Review Request: nodejs-gzip-size - Get the gzipped size of a string or buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078469 Bug 1078469 depends on bug 977137, which changed state. Bug 977137 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-zlib-browserify - Wrapper for zlib.js to allow for use in browsers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977137 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977137] Review Request: nodejs-zlib-browserify - Wrapper for zlib.js to allow for use in browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977137 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-19 14:57:38 --- Comment #8 from Jamie Nguyen --- Built for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=505679 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||977125 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 [Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||977125 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 [Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078465] Review Request: nodejs-pretty-bytes - Convert bytes to a human readable string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078465 Tom Hughes 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 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 David King changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #11 from David King --- Hey, any change that we can move forward with the review? It has been a few months without a response. If you are too busy, I can follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Reviewer_not_responding and reset the review flag in 1 week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977126] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-lib-contrib - Common functionality shared across grunt-contrib tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977126 --- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > Everything looks OK. Is there some reason for not enabling tests? They seem > to > pass correctly when enabled. It's because nodejs-zlib-browserify will only be available on F21 for now. I'll conditionalize the tests to only run on F21 for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078469] Review Request: nodejs-gzip-size - Get the gzipped size of a string or buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078469 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||977137 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977137 [Bug 977137] Review Request: nodejs-zlib-browserify - Wrapper for zlib.js to allow for use in browsers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977137] Review Request: nodejs-zlib-browserify - Wrapper for zlib.js to allow for use in browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977137 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078469 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078469 [Bug 1078469] Review Request: nodejs-gzip-size - Get the gzipped size of a string or buffer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1078458, 1078463, 1078470, ||1078475 --- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/SRPMS/nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify-0.4.0-2.fc21.src.rpm * Wed Mar 19 2014 Jamie Nguyen - 0.4.0-2 - 'nodejs_fixdep uglify-js' required because our dependency handler doesn't yet support the package.json '^' notation Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078458 [Bug 1078458] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal - Internal tasks for managing the grunt-contrib project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078463 [Bug 1078463] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-clean - A Grunt plugin to clean files and folders https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 [Bug 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 [Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078458] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal - Internal tasks for managing the grunt-contrib project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078458 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||977125 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 [Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078463] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-clean - A Grunt plugin to clean files and folders
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078463 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||977125 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977125 [Bug 977125] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-uglify - Minify files with UglifyJS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078470 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 [Bug 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-19 14:30:36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1078475 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 [Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078474] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-styles - ANSI escape codes for colorizing strings in the terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078474 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078475 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 [Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078472] Review Request: nodejs-has-color - Detects whether a terminal supports color
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078472 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078475 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 [Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078475] Review Request: nodejs-chalk - Terminal string styling done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078475 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1078471, 1078472, 1078474 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078471 [Bug 1078471] Review Request: nodejs-strip-ansi - Strip ANSI escape codes (used for colorizing strings in the terminal) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078472 [Bug 1078472] Review Request: nodejs-has-color - Detects whether a terminal supports color https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078474 [Bug 1078474] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-styles - ANSI escape codes for colorizing strings in the terminal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
