[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #17 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- 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 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- 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 1077956] Review Request: perl-Image-SubImageFind - Perl extension for locating a sub-image within an image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077956 --- Comment #3 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #2) FIX: BR perl(Exporter), lib/Image/SubImageFind.pm:24, loaded via use_ok() Done. TODO: I think line 45 is not needed, not even on EPEL. Done. FIX: This uses some code from http://werner.yellowcouch.org/Papers/subimg/ in DWVB.cpp. This could probably be considered a derived work and should include the original license in the License tag (GPLv2+ and Copyright only, I'd say). What do you think? I can't find any reference to an actual license for this code at all. I've sent an email to wer...@yellowcouch.org asking for a clarification of the license terms. Again, I haven't tried building without those but I don't see any ImageMagick-devel header files used anywhere. Also, even those glibc-devel is not on the exceptions list, I think some C library, in whatever form, will always be available given that a compiler is. Agreed. Spec and SRPMs have been updated, but are waiting for a license clarification from wer...@yellowcouch.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Review: + Package built successfully in mock rawhide + rpmlint on generated rpms gave output perl-Exporter-Tiny.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %EXPORT_TAGS perl-Exporter-Tiny.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coderefs - code refs, code-refs, recorders perl-Exporter-Tiny.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %EXPORT_TAGS perl-Exporter-Tiny.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coderefs - code refs, code-refs, recorders 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum) srpm tarball:e2e8d08ce4a959d3be3efdfac4cd6d57ff3ea38801b18b3a99c4b3df9306a3f7 upstream tarball:e2e8d08ce4a959d3be3efdfac4cd6d57ff3ea38801b18b3a99c4b3df9306a3f7 + License is valid and included in + %check showed All tests successful. + Package perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.fc21.noarch Provides: perl(Exporter::Shiny) = 0.036 perl(Exporter::Tiny) = 0.036 perl-Exporter-Tiny = 0.036-2.fc21 Requires: perl = 0:5.006001 perl(Exporter::Tiny) perl(strict) perl(warnings) + rest looks as per packaging guidelines Suggestions: 1) Please correct the buildroot tag to one of the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag 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 822327] Review Request: mediainfo - Supplies technical and tag information about a video or audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822327 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mediainfo-0.7.67-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mediainfo-0.7.67-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077956] Review Request: perl-Image-SubImageFind - Perl extension for locating a sub-image within an image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077956 --- Comment #4 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- Werner (wer...@yellowcouch.org) has updated the following url to be licensed as GPLv2 http://werner.yellowcouch.org/Papers/subimg/subimg.c++ Therefore the license terms for the spec are correct and are waiting for approval. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075822] Review Request: openstack-marconi - OpenStack Message Queuing Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075822 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- I'll start reviewing and testing your package but I can't approve it until you've been sponsored into the packager group. To move forward into the sponsoring process, I'll ask you to do two informal reviews and link them back here. Avoid FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets as I usually finish the reviews, it will get me into a recursive loop ;) http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html = list of review tickets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1052060] Review Request: ip2location - IP to location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052060 --- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- ip2location provide only the libraries and headers for the application, hence no run time package is created. This is not acceptable. The shared library is the runtime part, the headers and libIP2Location.so are the build-time part. That's not the only packaging mistake, however. There are more, such as hardcoded /usr/lib, use of %attr for ordinary +x (prefer %install and fixing the upstream install code), missing ldconfig scriptlets, missing licensing files, incorrect license tag, license clarification needed. Just to mention a few. Please keep the Spec URL: and SRPM URL: lines in this ticket up-to-date, then run fedora-review -b 1052060 for some helpful reviewing checks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063038] Review Request: rubygem-cookiejar - The Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 --- Comment #8 from Nitesh Narayan Lal niteshnara...@fedoraproject.org --- SPECS:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-cookiejar.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.1-3.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077762] Review Request: rubygem-bcrypt - Wrapper around bcrypt() password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077762 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Thanks Mo. So I'm taking this for a 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 1078489] Review Request: python-nbxmpp - Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078489
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lemen...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is silent
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/python-nbxmpp-*
../SRPMS/python-nbxmpp-0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (some
GPLv3 - some source files are licensed under GPLv2+, while others are licensed
under GPLv3 so the resulting license is GPLv3).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum nbxmpp-0.4.tar.gz*
d02b5e77302ca90f1e2db69f911785b8239ae30b0049fe6626d5ebb7cd87781c
nbxmpp-0.4.tar.gz
d02b5e77302ca90f1e2db69f911785b8239ae30b0049fe6626d5ebb7cd87781c
nbxmpp-0.4.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (I checked on my ppc, which is even more cool).
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 1077762] Review Request: rubygem-bcrypt - Wrapper around bcrypt() password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077762
--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
* Wrong rename obsoletes
- They should be:
Provides: rubygem(brypt-ruby) = %{version}
Provides: rubygem-brypt-ruby = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: rubygem-brypt-ruby = 3.1.2-1
- Please note that it is not good idea to obsolete virtual provide. You
should
obsolete the package.
- See the [1] for more info.
* Add -doc subpackage
- Please consider adding -doc subpackage and move non-essential stuff there.
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #33 from Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #32) 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. I'm not saying it isn't needed, but it isn't essential. I don't think it would be a good idea to build the library with MPFR/GMP support without adding dependencies to these libraries, so I guess not supporting MPFR/GMP altogether is the best solution (as we discussed earlier). If somebody needs MPFR/GMP support, they can still use fparser as copylib. That said, I removed the internal header files from the package. I also had another look at the debian package. They use some macros in configure.ac which don't seem to have any effect (because they define something which isn't used/checked by fparser). Other than that, it is similar to ours (yours). I moved the autoreconf call to %prep. Thanks for your help! SPEC: http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser.spec SRPM http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser-4.5.1-7.fc20.src.rpm patch: http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser.autotools.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073978] Review Request: photocollage - An image assembler with a Gtk GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073978 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Taking for 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 1074969] Review Request: perl-Config-Generator - rpm containing global variables used by the Config::Generator modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074969 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Config-Generator-0.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Config-Generator-0.5-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077792] Review Request: copr-cli - Command line interface for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077792
--- Comment #8 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
I done rawhide build using mock and I see it owned. One problem is that those
doc files are in both packages (but that is obviously bug 1078760), but
%{_pkgdocdir} is owned.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Exporter-Tiny Short Description: An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies Owners: pghmcfc Branches: f19 f20 el5 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig Thanks for the review Parag. The buildroot tag is basically the same as the second one in the list in the guidelines, except with the use of the macro for the id command removed, bearing in mind that the guidelines also frown on the use of macros for standard system commands like id. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069613] Review Request: jenkins-instance-identity - Jenkins identity instance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069613 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jenkins-instance-identity Short Description: Jenkins identity instance Owners: msrb Branches: InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Package does not appear to exist in pkgdb currently, if this is a new package use a New Package Request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069613] Review Request: jenkins-instance-identity - Jenkins identity instance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069613 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069613] Review Request: jenkins-instance-identity - Jenkins identity instance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069613 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078489] Review Request: python-nbxmpp - Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078489 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for the review, Peter. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-nbxmpp Short Description: Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP Owners: michich Branches: f20 f19 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 642601] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - Ruby UUID generator based on RFC 4122
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642601 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2014-03-20 07:57:58 --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Dependencies of uuid were never satisfied in Fedora and package was retired some while ago. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rubygem-uuid.git/commit/?id=f38fdf0428f8e82507363e44a19d730b9b1141ba -- 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 770986] Review Request: rubygem-kgio - Kinder, gentler I/O for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770986 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-20 08:01:33 --- Comment #14 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- This is in Fedora already for some time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991339] Review Request: rubygem-sdoc - RDoc generator to build searchable HTML documentation for Ruby code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991339 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-20 08:04:22 --- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Already imported into Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078489] Review Request: python-nbxmpp - Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078489 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078489] Review Request: python-nbxmpp - Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078489 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069629] Review Request: jenkins-executable-war - Jenkins Executable War
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069629 --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) ISSUES: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1069629-jenkins- executable-war/licensecheck.txt License field should be BSD I just checked again and it seems to me that all content is under MIT. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I already tried in some other Jenkins package, but upstream didn't accept my pull request with ASL 2.0 license text. Their opinion is that having licenses specified in pom.xml is enough. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. MIT license tag is correct in my opinion, so MIT license text should be in the package. Please, report to upstream to include license file @ https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS Please, consider changing maven-compiler-plugin configuration for use source/target = 1.5 No problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: httpress Short Description: HTTP stress benchmark utility Owners: nmav Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060651] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-support - Common functionality to Rspec series
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060651 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-20 09:02:43 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Sorry for delay. Imported, closing. Thank you for review and git procedure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077295] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Tiny - An exporter with the features of Sub::Exporter but only core dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077295 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.036-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062282] Review Request: httpress - HTTP stress benchmark utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-20 09:25:44 --- Comment #22 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co |fedora-review? |m) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074482] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter-Lite - Perl interface to the Twitter API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074482
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
Review checklist
- rpmlint clean
- package and spec file naming OK
- package meets guidelines
- license is same as perl, matches upstream, and is OK for Fedora
- upstream's license file is packaged
- spec file written in English and is legible
- source file matches upstream
- package builds OK is mock for EPEL-6 (x86_64) and in koji for F-21 (x86_64)
- build dependencies mostly ok (see below)
- no locale data or shared libraries to concern ourselves with
- no bundled libraries included
- package is not intended to be relocatable
- directory ownership is fine
- no duplicate files
- permissions are fine
- macro usage is consistent
- code, not content
- no large docs
- docs shouldn't affect runtime
- no static libraries, development files or sub-packages to worry about
- not a GUI app, no desktop file needed
- all filenames are ASCII
- no scriptlets
- no pkgconfig file needed
TODO
perl(Module::Build) version requirement should be 0.35, as per your patch.
I don't see where perl(base), perl(File::Spec), perl(Scalar::Util),
perl(Storable) and perl(vars) are used, except in example files and/or
documentation, so they're not really needed as buildreqs or (in some cases)
explicit runtime deps.
Similarly, Data::Dumper is used by the test suite and in an example file,
but there's no real runtime need for it, so the explicit require of it is
unnecessary.
Upstream has manually added Test::Fatal as a test dependency but doesn't
actually use it, so it could be removed. They also specified Test::Simple
0.98 but as you've found, older versions work fine. Looking at the tests,
I think Test::More version 0.82 is the actual requirement, for note() in
t/00-compile.t. I'd drop the Test::Simple dependency and add the version
dependency for perl(Test::More).
Nits
You have the build requirements for the release tests, but don't run them;
I'd suggest either dropping those buildreqs or running the release tests.
Since you've added an explicit runtime dependency on perl(Net::Netrc), you
should probably add a BuildRequires for it too. Unless there's a bootstrapping
issue, I think it's good practice to build-require everything that's required
at runtime, which can help you find some dependency issues at build-time that
you wouldn't otherwise discover until the built package is pushed to a repo
and someone tries to install it.
The dependency filtering is usually placed just before %description in the
spec.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Location_of_macro_invocation
I'd add a comment that your filtering is to remove under-specified
dependencies, since you're explictly requiring particular versions of
those modules.
I'd put %{perl_vendorlib}/Net/ instead of %{perl_vendorlib}/* in the %files
list; there's really no need for a wildcard there.
Summary
===
Package has been put together carefully and isn't just the output of cpanspec;
none of the issues above are blockers, so feel free to address them or not as
you see fit.
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 1069629] Review Request: jenkins-executable-war - Jenkins Executable War
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069629 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- thanks! consider approved, after correcting the maven-compiler-plugin configuration -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078489] Review Request: python-nbxmpp - Python library for non-blocking use of Jabber/XMPP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078489 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-20 10:00:38 --- Comment #4 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069617] Review Request: jenkins-credentials-plugin - Jenkins Credentials Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069617 --- Comment #2 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Good catch, updated to 1.10: Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/2/jenkins-credentials-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/2/jenkins-credentials-plugin-1.10-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069629] Review Request: jenkins-executable-war - Jenkins Executable War
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069629 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) thanks! consider approved, after correcting the maven-compiler-plugin configuration and use %mvn_build -- -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069617] Review Request: jenkins-credentials-plugin - Jenkins Credentials Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069617 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069709] Review Request: jenkins-mailer-plugin - Jenkins Mailer Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069709 --- Comment #2 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Updated: Spec URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/2/jenkins-mailer-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/2/jenkins-mailer-plugin-1.8-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057991] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - Super-fast text searching tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057991 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- 0.21 is available. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1035770] Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-wheel New Branches: f20 Owners: bkabrda rkuska -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069617] Review Request: jenkins-credentials-plugin - Jenkins Credentials Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069617
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1069617-jenkins-
credentials-plugin/licensecheck.txt
IGNORE
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jenkins-
credentials-plugin-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: 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
[Bug 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #12) Hello, Is that package still under review? Sorry, you probably need to wait at least 1 day because my computer is broken 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 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pyramid-mako Short Description: Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework Owners: ralph Branches: f20 f19 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069709] Review Request: jenkins-mailer-plugin - Jenkins Mailer Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069709 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077792] Review Request: copr-cli - Command line interface for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077792
Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #8)
I done rawhide build using mock and I see it owned. One problem is that
those doc files are in both packages (but that is obviously bug 1078760),
but %{_pkgdocdir} is owned.
%doc (/usr/share/doc/copr-cli in Fedora =20) macro defines documentation
directory in main package.
*-doc sub-package needs /usr/share/doc/copr-cli to locate own directory but
it's not dependent by main package*.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function
/usr/share/doc/copr-cli can be co-owned by both packages.
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 1069709] Review Request: jenkins-mailer-plugin - Jenkins Mailer Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069709
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1069709-jenkins-
mailer-plugin/licensecheck.txt
IGNORE
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jenkins-
mailer-plugin-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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 not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly
[Bug 1069709] Review Request: jenkins-mailer-plugin - Jenkins Mailer Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069709 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6655123 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] New: Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 Bug ID: 1078946 Summary: Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rb...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-bugzilla2fedmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A moksha consumer that listens to bugzilla over STOMP and reproduces messages on a fedmsg bus. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078950] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Modern - Precision testing for modern perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078950 Bug ID: 1078950 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Modern - Precision testing for modern perl Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Test-Modern/branches/fedora/perl-Test-Modern.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Test-Modern/perl-Test-Modern-0.002-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Test::Modern provides the best features of Test::More, Test::Fatal, Test::Warnings, Test::API, Test::LongString, and Test::Deep, as well as ideas from Test::Requires, Test::DescribeMe, Test::Moose, and Test::CleanNamespaces. Test::Modern also automatically imposes strict and warnings on your script. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc Unfortunately Test::Modern is already too modern for EL-7 as the versions of Test::Deep and Try::Tiny there are too old. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com --- Licence issue resolved (Seems like it's modified variant of BSD) Hidden file issue need to resolve before scm. APPROVE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pin...@pingoured.fr Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- * Sources are clean license wise (LGPLv2+) * Package builds successfully * rpmlint is clean $ rpmlint python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-bugzilla2fedmsg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US moksha - Mohawk python-bugzilla2fedmsg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla - Bugzilla python-bugzilla2fedmsg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US moksha - Mohawk python-bugzilla2fedmsg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bugzilla - Bugzilla 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. * spec is clean * Upstream sources: e35d8c6c78b6dfdbf5e44668cb4fb7ab61a447c2315983b69f26860e23361338 python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc20.src/bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3.tar.gz * Source rpm sources: e35d8c6c78b6dfdbf5e44668cb4fb7ab61a447c2315983b69f26860e23361338 bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3.tar.gz Looks, good to me! This 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 1057991] Review Request: the_silver_searcher - Super-fast text searching tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057991 --- Comment #11 from Kenjiro Nakayama knaka...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10) Thanks, Updated to 0.21.0 Updated Spec URL: http://diy-kenjiro.rhcloud.com/rpms/the_silver_searcher.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://diy-kenjiro.rhcloud.com/rpms/the_silver_searcher-0.21.0-1.20140321git.fc20.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6655188 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078960] New: Review Request: mino - A user friendly text editor for the Linux console/xterm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078960 Bug ID: 1078960 Summary: Review Request: mino - A user friendly text editor for the Linux console/xterm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/mino.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/mino-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Mino is a text file editor for use with the Linux console/xterm. The idea was to provide a text editor that is user friendly and easy to use (especially for those who are experienced with the GUI interface). Having accustomed to SHIFT selecting text, using CTRL-shortcut keys and so on makes it hard for a regular Joe to learn how to use other text based editor that need special syntaxes and hard (sometimes akward) commands that need memorizing. This is where mino comes to play. You don't need to learn any thing! Use it under Linux console or even the X system and editing configuration (and other text) files is just a breeze. Fedora Account System Username: mohammedisam -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-bugzilla2fedmsg Short Description: Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg Owners: ralph Branches: f20 f19 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078103] Review Request: edit - A user friendly text editor for the Linux console/xterm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078103 Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-03-20 11:39:44 --- Comment #3 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1078960 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078960] Review Request: mino - A user friendly text editor for the Linux console/xterm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078960 --- Comment #1 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com --- *** Bug 1078103 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 1077956] Review Request: perl-Image-SubImageFind - Perl extension for locating a sub-image within an image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077956 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- That was fast :) Yes, I believe this is correct but GPLv2 and GPLv2+ would be even better (again, given the headers in the various source files in the package). Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1035770] Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1035770] Review Request: python-wheel - A built-package format for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035770 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069257] Review Request: fparser - Function parser library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #34 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- I don't think it would be a good idea to build the library with MPFR/GMP support without adding dependencies to these libraries, That dependency would be _automatic_, because libfparser would be linked with libgmp+libmpfr. That would result in an automatic dep on the lib SONAME. On the contrary, using that extra part of the library API would be _optional_ - the fparser.hh header does not include any header from gmp/mpfr. Only the optional extra headers do - the fparser-devel package would not need to depend on those external -devel packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078950] Review Request: perl-Test-Modern - Precision testing for modern perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078950 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077762] Review Request: rubygem-bcrypt - Wrapper around bcrypt() password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077762 --- Comment #5 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Thank you, fixed: SPEC: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-bcrypt.spec SRPM: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-bcrypt-3.1.7-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078950] Review Request: perl-Test-Modern - Precision testing for modern perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078950 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- TODO: BR perl, perl-Test-Modern.spec:48 TODO: BR perl(base), t/06class-api-ok.t:26 TODO: You should run-require perl(Tiny::Role), perl(Moose::Util), and perl(Mouse::Util) FIX: The CONTRIBUTING file states the following: COPYRIGHT AND LICENCE Copyright (c) 2012-2013 by Toby Inkster. CONTRIBUTING.pod is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England Wales License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/. Even though this is not `CONTIBUTING.pod', I think the author's intention is fairly clear and CC-BY-SA should be added to your License tag. Still, contacting the author about the file name mismatch would be good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 816869] Review Request: perl-VMware-API-LabManager - VMware LabManager API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816869 --- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com --- Ping? :) License verified? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894596] Review Request: coin-or-Blis - BLIS (BiCePS Linear Integer Solver)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894596 --- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #3) Need to wait a bit for coin-or-Blis to show on repositories for a proper fedora-review run. Update: - Update to latest upstream release - Create doc subpackage Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Blis.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Blis-0.93.11-1.fc21.src.rpm It cannot be built in rawhide. There could be a BR issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069939] Review Request: python-pytest-pep8 - pytest plugin to check PEP8 requirements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069939 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Taking 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 1074625] Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074625 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078994] New: Review Request: milou - Plasma applet for searching almost anything
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078994 Bug ID: 1078994 Summary: Review Request: milou - Plasma applet for searching almost anything Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dvra...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/spec/milou.spec SRPM URL: http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/spec/milou-0.1-0.1.20140320git.fc20.src.rpm Description: Milou is a Plasma applet that can search through files, emails, contacts, calendar events and other data indexed by KDE Desktop Search. Fedora Account System Username: dvratil Successful Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6655538 Upstream is going to make first release around the time KDE 4.13 is released, so this is just a git snapshot to get the package in and I'll update and push it to repos once the stable release is out. This package depends on packages from KDE 4.13 available in rawhide. Won't build against KDE 4.12. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #2 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Buildroot overrides have been created for the new dependency python-pyramid-mako. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894596] Review Request: coin-or-Blis - BLIS (BiCePS Linear Integer Solver)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894596 --- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) It cannot be built in rawhide. There could be a BR issue. It was my fault of not properly testing as coin-or-Bcps (not Blis as wrongly commented) was yet not available in rawhide, and I forgot to remake the srpm after adding bzip2-devel and zlib-devel to build requires. Now I also added texlive-epstopdf and silenced doxygen warnings. Update: - Add missing build requires - Silence doxygen deprecation warnings Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Blis.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Blis-0.93.11-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074625] Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074625 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 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 1074625] Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074625 --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Is the test suite runnable ? At the moment, I haven't found any blockers except the FPC exception request but I'm confident that it'll get sorted out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074625] Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074625 --- Comment #2 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- The test suite depends upon a few things that aren't in Fedora, notably: Colt (non-free, can't package) and mahout-math (not available yet). If mahout-math becomes available in the future I can evaluate whether or not we could use lancer or something else for the Colt functionality required by the test suite. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074625] Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074625 --- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Seems fair, I'll keep reviewing the code and it features but I don't see anything preventing its approval as soon as the FPC agrees with the exception request (i'll try to ping some members about 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 1074625] Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074625
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
Ok, the exception has just been approved by the FPC, let's move on with the
formal review :o)
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-03-20/fedora-meeting-1.2014-03-20-17.05.html
Since it respects Fedora general java specific packaging guidelines, I hereby
approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* Apache (v2.0).
8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/haikel/1074625-stream-lib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is
