[Bug 1052060] Review Request: ip2location - IP to location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052060 --- Comment #14 from Chris Lim chrislim2...@yahoo.com --- Guru2018 and I are from the same team of ip2location development. guru2018 is taking over the task for the fixing and fine-tuning. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076192] Review Request: python-bitmath - Aids representing and manipulating sizes in various prefix notations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076192
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
MIT/X11 (BSD like)
--
bitmath-1.0.3-1/bitmath/__init__.py
bitmath-1.0.3-1/setup.py
Unknown or generated
bitmath-1.0.3-1/tests/__init__.py
bitmath-1.0.3-1/tests/test_basic_math.py
bitmath-1.0.3-1/tests/test_properties.py
bitmath-1.0.3-1/tests/test_representation.py
bitmath-1.0.3-1/tests/test_to_Type_conversion.py
[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 30720 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: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]:
[Bug 1052060] Review Request: ip2location - IP to location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052060 --- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Chris Lim from comment #14) Guru2018 and I are from the same team of ip2location development. guru2018 is taking over the task for the fixing and fine-tuning. Understand now. But here are my advices: 1. One being as the submitter should continue the work. 2. If the original submitter has some reasons that block him from continuing the job, let the people coming after create a new bug and mark this as duplicate. 3. Follow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers For people coming from one team/company, independent acccounts are needed, please don't use your teammate's account to update the package. Now I'm concerned about the new SRPM. ;) 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 1074149] Review Request: libepoxy - OpenGL pointer management library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074149
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
MIT/X11 (BSD like)
--
libepoxy-20140307/include/epoxy/egl.h
libepoxy-20140307/include/epoxy/gl.h
libepoxy-20140307/include/epoxy/glx.h
libepoxy-20140307/include/epoxy/wgl.h
libepoxy-20140307/src/dispatch_common.c
libepoxy-20140307/src/dispatch_common.h
libepoxy-20140307/src/dispatch_egl.c
libepoxy-20140307/src/dispatch_glx.c
libepoxy-20140307/src/dispatch_wgl.c
libepoxy-20140307/src/gen_dispatch.py
libepoxy-20140307/test/egl_common.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/egl_common.h
libepoxy-20140307/test/egl_has_extension_nocontext.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/egl_without_glx.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_beginend.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_common.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_common.h
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_glxgetprocaddress_nocontext.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_has_extension_nocontext.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_public_api.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_public_api_core.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/glx_static.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/headerguards.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/khronos_typedefs.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/khronos_typedefs.h
libepoxy-20140307/test/khronos_typedefs_nonepoxy.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/miscdefines.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/wgl_common.c
libepoxy-20140307/test/wgl_common.h
libepoxy-20140307/test/wgl_core_and_exts.c
Unknown or generated
libepoxy-20140307/.dir-locals.el
libepoxy-20140307/autogen.sh
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package
[Bug 1069934] Review Request: python-pytest-flakes - pytest plugin to check source code with pyflakes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069934 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 python3-pytest-flakes.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pyflakes - flakes python3-pytest-flakes.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C pytest plugin to check source code with pyflakes python3-pytest-flakes.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y python3-pytest-flakes.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyflakes - flakes python-pytest-flakes.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C pytest plugin to check source code with pyflakes python-pytest-flakes.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y python-pytest-flakes.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C pytest plugin to check source code with pyflakes python-pytest-flakes.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum) srpm tarball:9194712d8d0d01b871f68d33fa1e26ff717bb4a6f2b42891ac5d2baca6609558 upstream tarball:9194712d8d0d01b871f68d33fa1e26ff717bb4a6f2b42891ac5d2baca6609558 - unable to verify license tag + rest looks as per packaging guidelines Suggestions: 1) Summary can be capitalized like say Pytest plugin 2) unable to find license tag or text in source files. Better add new source in spec and install https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fschulze/pytest-flakes/master/LICENSE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #3 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Net-Twitter-Lite Short Description: Perl interface to the Twitter API Owners: ddick Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074149] Review Request: libepoxy - OpenGL pointer management library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074149 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- These two apply also: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github Even if a script like make-git-snap-shot.sh is included, a one-line comment should tell how to replicate the included source tarball. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 --- Comment #15 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Hello, it seems that meanwhile libev dropped pkg-config support. I've put a -3 version that directly uses the required cflags. http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/sniproxy-0.1-3.git0d71fca.fc20.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/sniproxy.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: vim-gtk-syntax Short Description: Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more Owners: amigadave Branches: f20 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 1074482] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter-Lite - Perl interface to the Twitter API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074482 David Dick dd...@cpan.org 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 1069617] Review Request: jenkins-credentials-plugin - Jenkins Credentials Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069617 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jenkins-credentials-plugin Short Description: Jenkins Credentials Plugin Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk msimacek 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 1069709] Review Request: jenkins-mailer-plugin - Jenkins Mailer Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069709 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jenkins-mailer-plugin Short Description: Jenkins Mailer Plugin Owners: msrb sochotni mizdebsk msimacek 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 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: BSD (2 clause) -- sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/address.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/address.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/backend.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/backend.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/binder.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/binder.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/buffer.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/buffer.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/cfg_parser.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/cfg_parser.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/cfg_tokenizer.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/cfg_tokenizer.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/config.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/config.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/connection.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/connection.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/http.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/http.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/listener.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/listener.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/logger.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/logger.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/protocol.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/server.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/server.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/sniproxy.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/sniproxy.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/table.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/table.h sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/tls.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/src/tls.h Unknown or generated sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/autogen.sh sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/TestHTTPD.pm sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/TestUtils.pm sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/address_test.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/binder_test.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/buffer_test.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/cfg_tokenizer_test.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/config_test.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/http_test.c sniproxy-0d71fcaa089f884b53540af8773c97ffd7efb327/tests/tls_test.c [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of
[Bug 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 --- Comment #17 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #16) Package Review == PACKAGE APPROVED. 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 Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sniproxy Short Description: Transparent TLS proxy 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 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Sorry one thing I forgot to paste: Summary:Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer, and more Too loong per 79 chars/line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libzdb New Branches: epel7 Owners: bjohnson cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #15 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Thanks for the suggestions. I updated the spec and SRPM in place with those. There is also a scratch build at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6657945 I have started writing some guidelines at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Amigadave/VimGuidelines I will need to read up on some of the other application-specific guidelines to come up with a good document, so feel free to edit 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 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax |vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax |highlighting for GLib, |highlighting for GLib, |Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer |Gtk+, Gstreamer and more |and more| --- Comment #16 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: vim-gtk-syntax Short Description: Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more Owners: amigadave Branches: f20 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 1077301] Review Request: python-aaargh - An astonishingly awesome application argument helper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077301
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Kuznetsov vkuzn...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Adrien Vergé from comment #1)
Hi Vitaly,
Thanks for your review!
You can remove the -n %{name}-%{version} part in %setup, that's the
default.
I'm not using %{name}-%{version} but %{modname}-%{version} where modname
stands for aaargh (without 'python-' prefix). I need to do that due to the
fact that aaargh (as other python modules) is distributed in
'aaargh-VERSION.tar.gz' form.
The %description for the Python3 version contains a too long line. Actually
it overflows of just *one* character, I guess it's caused by the '3' of
Python3. ;-)
Fixed! SRPM and SPEC updated.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069988] Review Request: naemon - Open Source Host, Service And Network Monitoring Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069988
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Sven Nierlein from comment #10)
Some updates... As thruk developer and naemon core dev like Dan i hopefully
can help to change things to fit the fedora requirements.
Thanks!
6. This would be the package name of the standalone gui. Its not a official
fedora package atm. It can go if it violates any packaging guidelines.
One package conflicts with a package non-existing forever, uh? ;)
9. What exactly is the problem here? Should we just skip the devel package?
Or should we provide full %attr?
Unclear sorry, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Static libraries should only be included in exceptional circumstances.
Applications linking against libraries should as far as possible link against
shared libraries not static versions.
Thus you'd better remove static libraries.
10. .o is the file extension for nagios/naemon loadable objects.
Got it, thanks!
12. This does not skip tests entirely, but does not build extented tests
which would require additional dependencies. Since full tests are done on
travis-ci, we skiped them during packaging.
Thanks for the clarification!
16. The Perl modules are the reason why we used AutoReqProv:no in
naemon-thruk and naemon-thruk-libs. In an ideal world, all required perl
modules would exist as packages already, then we could just skip the libs
package and use requires entirely. Thruk itself looks like a perl module for
cleaner development, but is a catalyst perl application, so it does not
provide any perl modules.
I could probably rewrite this to use
%global __provides_exclude_from ...
%global __requires_exclude_from ...
That's dirty, AutoReqProv:no is not allowed to be used now.
This case matchs bundled libraries, you must remove them and use the system
shipped.
17. %if %{defined suse_version}:
We tried to make a universal spec file which fits most systems. We could of
course create a fedora only spec file. But i see little benefit, it just
creates maintainance overhead. If this is a strict requirement, we could
maybe provide a script to automatically remove these tags on building the
fedora source packages.
Yes, since providing such is nonsense(trust me). SUSE's way of packaging is not
good from the view of Fedora sometimes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077810] Review Request: gnome-sound-recorder - Make short recordings from your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077810 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Review later, busy these days. Exchange with bug First note: gnome-media-apps is from gnome-media which has been retired since f21+. This package is a sound recorder, why it has such obsoletes? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077810] Review Request: gnome-sound-recorder - Make short recordings from your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077810 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Exchange with bug 1065610. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 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 1065610] Review Request: mandelbulber - Advanced 3D fractal generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||amigad...@amigadave.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|amigad...@amigadave.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Will look at this today (swap with bug 1077810). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #4 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- Good catch. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #17 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Too loong per 79 chars/line. Don't forget that the Summary tag doesn't count, so the summary Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer, and more is just 71 chars. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077810] Review Request: gnome-sound-recorder - Make short recordings from your desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077810 --- Comment #4 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Hi, thanks for the comment. gnome-sound-recorder used to be part of gnome-media-apps, but this version is a complete rewrite and not just a splitting-up of the package. I added the Obsoletes as this package installs /usr/bin/gnome-sound-recorder, as does gnome-media-apps, and this package is intended to be the functional replacement of the old gnome-sound-recorder. This is not a direct replacement, as gnome-media-apps also had a GStreamer properties application, so I do not think that a Provides would be appropriate (although I do not know if there is a replacement package for the properties application). This almost follows: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages but I suppose that I should add a comment and also a versioned Obsoletes? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #18 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #17) Too loong per 79 chars/line. Don't forget that the Summary tag doesn't count, so the summary Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer, and more is just 71 chars. 72 ;) My fault, damn I don't know why I commented... Sorry for the confusion David... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 David Dick dd...@cpan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Image-SubImageFind Short Description: Perl extension for locating a sub-image within an image Owners: ddick Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- 72 ;) Christopher, I didn't count them by hand, so assume the column number in Emacs was correct. To verify: $ echo -n Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer, and more | wc -c 71 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065610] Review Request: mandelbulber - Advanced 3D fractal generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #2 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- I cannot seem to fetch the spec nor SRPM: ERROR: 'Error [Errno socket error] [Errno 111] Connection refused downloading http://cicku.me/mandelbulber-1.21-1.fc21.src.rpm' Can you check 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 1078074] Review Request: perl-Set-Tiny - Simple sets of strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078074 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Set-Tiny-0.01-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068644] Review Request: python-croniter - Iteration for datetime object with cron like format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068644 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-croniter-0.3.4-2.fc2 ||0 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-03-21 05:28:38 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-croniter-0.3.4-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #20 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Thanks, it is god to know about the limit. I think that the new summary is a bit better anyway, even though the old one did not go over the limit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073974] Review Request: python-pycadf - DMTF Cloud Audit (CADF) data model
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073974 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-pycadf-0.4.1-2.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-03-21 05:29:57 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pycadf-0.4.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068644] Review Request: python-croniter - Iteration for datetime object with cron like format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068644 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-croniter-0.3.4-2.fc2 |python-croniter-0.3.4-2.fc1 |0 |9 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-croniter-0.3.4-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060910] Review Request: uid_wrapper - A wrapper for privilege separation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060910 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||uid_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-03-21 05:32:45 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- uid_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010741] Review Request: python-nikola - Static website and blog generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010741 Bug 1010741 depends on bug 1075410, which changed state. Bug 1075410 Summary: RFE: python3-colorama https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075410 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #19) 72 ;) Christopher, I didn't count them by hand, so assume the column number in Emacs was correct. To verify: $ echo -n Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Xlib, Gimp, Gstreamer, and more | wc -c 71 After reading this, I finally understand that we are not talking about the same thing.. Let's stop. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1024885] Review Request: python-openstackclient - OpenStack Command-line Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024885 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-openstackclient-0.3. ||0-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-03-21 05:38:35 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-openstackclient-0.3.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Adrien Vergé from comment #7)
I have reviewed the latest submission in the list:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064
and I'll do others soon.
Excellent! Unfortunately, it's another FE-NEEDSPONSOR ticket and you won't be
able to officially approve that package once you are sponsored. Oh well, I
guess we could use more sponsors.
Anyway, regarding the comments in the other ticket:
Replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot}
Either one is actually fine as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
From what I read in your Makefile:
LIBS = $(SDL_LDFLAGS) -lSDL_image -lSDL_mixer -lexpat -lSDL_ttf -lphysfs \
-lboost_filesystem -lboost_system -lpng
your package depends on some libraries. You need to declare them explicitely
with Requires entries. Please refer to this section:
For C and C++, rpm includes a shared library dependency generator. It looks at
what libraries the executable uses (DT_NEEDED entries), and adds rpm Requires
automatically based on that.
In your case here, the package is a Python program and RPM does not have a
dependency generator for this, so you need to specify the Requires manually.
For C code like btbuilder, it's actually the other way around -- it's
recommended to have rpm take care of dependencies and not add manual Requires.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075806] Review Request: fcgiwrap - Simple FastCGI wrapper for CGI scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075806
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1. No systemd unit file, please write one.
2. %_sbindir/*
%_datadir/man/man8/*
%_sbindir -- %{_sbindir}
%_datadir/man/man8 -- %{_mandir}/man8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075806] Review Request: fcgiwrap - Simple FastCGI wrapper for CGI scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075806 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #22 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- It would be much better, if you made an attempt at trying to explain what you talk about (since comment 14). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#summary -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #18 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com --- Gne ? Listen, I Apologize if my quick message made you angry, I posted it in a hurry. It was nothing personnal. Forgot to mention: This is NEED-SPONSOR request, which means reviewers are expected to *teach* newcomers to Fedora practices. You (Adrian) failed to do so. i.e. disqualified yourself from being a packager sponsor. You speak without knowing anything. I know Alexandre personnaly, he is in the same organization than me. He did several informal reviews and packaging training during almost one month with me. It's what I name teaching and it is exactly what my sponsor did with me at the time. I fully take his actions under my responsability. If you are not happy with my way to proceed, I'm perfectly open to your explanation of what is teaching. You obviously are lacking suffient experience to unterstand the rationales behind this - It's a safety belt against stupid mistakes, which is causing misunderstandings and confusion. I am not willing to tolerate reviewers who accept such bad habits. I have currently more than 200 updates on my own, and around 50 packages under my responsability. A lot of packager ask to not increase the release tag during the review ( includind my sponsor if I remember properly ) for the good and simple reason that it avoids to rollback the release tag to 1 at the first import. If you are not fine with my method, I would be happy to discuss of this. But that does not justify your public attacks nor your agressivity or your way to proceed. Adev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069615] Review Request: jenkins-sshd - Jenkins sshd module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069615 Bug 1069615 depends on bug 1069613, which changed state. Bug 1069613 Summary: Review Request: jenkins-instance-identity - Jenkins identity instance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069613 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069614] Review Request: jenkins-ssh-cli-auth - Jenkins SSH CLI client authenticator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069614 Bug 1069614 depends on bug 1069613, which changed state. Bug 1069613 Summary: Review Request: jenkins-instance-identity - Jenkins identity instance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069613 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-21 05:56:18 --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Fixed in jenkins-instance-identity-1.3-1.fc21 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker 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 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 Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Fedora review photocollage-1.0.1-1.src.rpm 2014-03-21 $ rpmlint photocollage \ photocollage-1.0.1-1.src.rpm photocollage.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary photocollage photocollage.src: W: non-coherent-filename photocollage-1.0.1-1.src.rpm photocollage-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + 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 spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (LICENSE) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm 4334865175d8e12287155766930de57d photocollage-1.0.1.tar.gz 4334865175d8e12287155766930de57d Download/photocollage-1.0.1.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane + The spec file handles locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files + Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Just a small nit with %changelog section. In Fedora, it's common to have an empty newline between two changelog entries, such as: * Thu Mar 20 2014 Adrien Vergé adrienve...@gmail.com - 1.0.1-1 - Add license headers in source files * Wed Mar 5 2014 Adrien Vergé adrienve...@gmail.com - 1.0-1 - initial build Another thing I've noticed is that the package crashes about half the time after clicking on 'Preview poster' with the following spew on the console. No idea where this comes from, maybe something wrong down in the stack. [xcb] Unknown sequence number while processing queue [xcb] Most likely this is a multi-threaded client and XInitThreads has not been called [xcb] Aborting, sorry about that. python3: xcb_io.c:274: poll_for_event: Assertion `!xcb_xlib_threads_sequence_lost' failed. Aborted Anyway, the package looks good to me to go in! 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 1065610] Review Request: mandelbulber - Advanced 3D fractal generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to David King from comment #2) I cannot seem to fetch the spec nor SRPM: ERROR: 'Error [Errno socket error] [Errno 111] Connection refused downloading http://cicku.me/mandelbulber-1.21-1.fc21.src.rpm' Can you check it? Oh, I nearly forgot that my website is down for maintenance, please try later from the URL. SRPM(1 week only): http://www.tempfiles.net/download/201403/341006/mandelbulber-1.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075774] Review Request: nss-altfiles - NSS module to look up users in /usr/lib/passwd too
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075774
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck:
LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
-
nss-altfiles-e2a80593727e659af90db87a73ea2129fc52f499/files-XXX.c
nss-altfiles-e2a80593727e659af90db87a73ea2129fc52f499/files-grp.c
nss-altfiles-e2a80593727e659af90db87a73ea2129fc52f499/files-have_o_cloexec.c
nss-altfiles-e2a80593727e659af90db87a73ea2129fc52f499/files-parse.c
nss-altfiles-e2a80593727e659af90db87a73ea2129fc52f499/files-pwd.c
Unknown or generated
nss-altfiles-e2a80593727e659af90db87a73ea2129fc52f499/compat.h
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane,
[Bug 1036320] Review Request: nftables - Netfilter Tables userspace utillites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036320 --- Comment #17 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Please update to git snapshot 20130321 at least when you see the bugzilla email. Then I will start the formal 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 1073978] Review Request: photocollage - An image assembler with a Gtk GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073978 --- Comment #11 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- I've now sponsored you to the packager group. Welcome and use your new powers with care! It might take up to an hour for the permissions to sync everywhere (e.g. bugzilla) before you can set the flags in the ticket to request git repo creation. Feel free to send me emails or ask on IRC if you have any questions or need help with the processes. I am kalev on #fedora-devel on freenode and also on #fedora-desktop on irc.gnome.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 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 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036320] Review Request: nftables - Netfilter Tables userspace utillites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036320 --- Comment #18 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- /2013/2014/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069614] Review Request: jenkins-ssh-cli-auth - Jenkins SSH CLI client authenticator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069614 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Please, regenerate src rpm current proposed spec differs: %build # tests are disabled due to API incompatibilities %mvn_build -f spec file in jenkins-ssh-cli-auth-1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm %build %mvn_build -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077792] Review Request: copr-cli - Command line interface for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077792 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: copr-cli Short Description: Command line interface for COPR Owners: msuchy Branches: f19 f20 el6 el5 el7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674115] Review Request: yuicompressor-appjet - JavaScript minifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674115 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #6 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk --- Clearing flag so it doesn't show on my reports. -- 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 1072054] Review Request: gnome-code-assistance - Common code assistance services for code editors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072054 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- (In reply to paolo borelli from comment #1) Release is now done I can only see a release from last November. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064 Dennis Payne du...@identicalsoftware.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: btbuilder - |Review Request: btbuilder - |Open source implementation |Role-playing game |of the Bard's Tale |construction set in the |Construction Set|style of the Bard's Tale ||Construction Set --- Comment #5 from Dennis Payne du...@identicalsoftware.com --- I don't like that summary because btbuilder does more than the Bard's Tale Construction Set. How about Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set? I should improve the desrcription as well. I'm using desktop-file-install in the Makefile. Is that considered bad? Should I move it to the install section of the spec? Do I need to do desktop-file-validate since I'm using install? I don't understand Adrien's comments on requires. According to the guidelines: RPM has very good capabilities of automatically finding dependencies for libraries and eg. Perl modules. In short, don't reinvent the wheel, but just let rpm do its job. There is usually no need to explicitly list I believe all my library uses will be detected by RPM. The GPLv2+ issue is being looked into. When I added the images all the code was mine so I could make an exception for the images. With the addition of the mng code that isn't possible. Sorry about not using my real name on the bugzilla account. I created it a long time ago and didn't see the point of putting in my name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Dennis Payne from comment #5) I don't like that summary because btbuilder does more than the Bard's Tale Construction Set. How about Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set? I should improve the desrcription as well. Hi Denis, well, it's up to you. I'm not from upstream. I'm using desktop-file-install in the Makefile. Is that considered bad? Should I move it to the install section of the spec? Do I need to do desktop-file-validate since I'm using install? Oh... A new case ;) I think the current way is OK if you add this command in makefile instead of some upstream people just use install directly. I don't understand Adrien's comments on requires. According to the guidelines: RPM has very good capabilities of automatically finding dependencies for libraries and eg. Perl modules. In short, don't reinvent the wheel, but just let rpm do its job. There is usually no need to explicitly list I believe all my library uses will be detected by RPM. I don't find any questionable things on BRs. I'm concerned about: 1. Long %description. Remember 79 chars per line. 2. Remove %clean section. 3. No %changelog section. 4. %doc README CONTRIBUTIONS.TXT Where is license file? Sorry about not using my real name on the bugzilla account. I created it a long time ago and didn't see the point of putting in my name. Yes it's okay in the past, but not from 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 1078588] Review Request: ts - Task Spooler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078588 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Hi, Welcome to Fedora. Please take a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers Thanks. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722966] Review Request: mydumper - A high-performance multi-threaded backup toolset for MySQL and Drizzle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722966 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||jeffrey.n...@rackspace.com Flags||needinfo?(jeffrey.ness@rack ||space.com) --- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Jeffrey, we don't have too many resources on contacting non-responsive package submitter, if you can't respond in a week, I will close this. If someone is interested in this package, feel free to submit. Otherwise I will do this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Alright, looks good. 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 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 474044] Review Request: libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 --- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #23 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 1001407] Review Request: herbstluftwm - A manual tiling window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001407 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 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 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 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 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 --- Comment #19 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 1001407] Review Request: herbstluftwm - A manual tiling window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001407 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069617] Review Request: jenkins-credentials-plugin - Jenkins Credentials Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069617 --- 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 1069617] Review Request: jenkins-credentials-plugin - Jenkins Credentials Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069617 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 1069709] Review Request: jenkins-mailer-plugin - Jenkins Mailer Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069709 --- 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 1069709] Review Request: jenkins-mailer-plugin - Jenkins Mailer Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069709 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 1074482] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter-Lite - Perl interface to the Twitter API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074482 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 1074482] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter-Lite - Perl interface to the Twitter API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074482 --- 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 1077792] Review Request: copr-cli - Command line interface for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077792 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 1077792] Review Request: copr-cli - Command line interface for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077792 --- Comment #11 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 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 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 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 #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078469] Review Request: nodejs-gzip-size - Get the gzipped size of a string or buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078469 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 1078469] Review Request: nodejs-gzip-size - Get the gzipped size of a string or buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078469 --- 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 1078950] Review Request: perl-Test-Modern - Precision testing for modern perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078950 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Test-Modern Short Description: Precision testing for modern perl Owners: pghmcfc Branches: f20 InitialCC: perl-sig Thanks for the review Petr. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076916] Review Request: git-cal - GitHub-like contributions calendar on terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076916
--- Comment #4 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/git-cal/git-cal.spec
SRPM URL:
http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/git-cal/git-cal-0.9.1-3.fc20.src.rpm
Fixed that (sorry, that was dumb on my part), adding missing changelog entry
from last set of fixes, added new changelog entry for this fix.
Built in mock successfully.
One rpmlint warning:
git-cal.spec:26: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl Makefile.PL
DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=%{_prefix} NO_PACKLIST=1
but buildroot here is necessary.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 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 985446] Review Request: vim-gtk-syntax - Vim syntax highlighting for GLib, Gtk+, Gstreamer and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985446 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- vim-gtk-syntax-20130716-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vim-gtk-syntax-20130716-1.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 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|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-21 08:53:30 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #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 1078950] Review Request: perl-Test-Modern - Precision testing for modern perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078950 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 1059803] Review Request: sniproxy - Transparent TLS proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059803 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sniproxy-0.1-3.git0d71fca.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sniproxy-0.1-3.git0d71fca.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 1065610] Review Request: mandelbulber - Advanced 3D fractal generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610
David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co
||m)
--- Comment #4 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com ---
Functionally fine, just the Boost license problem to fix. The other issues
are all optional.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
Issues:
===
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains
desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in mandelbulber
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
Bogus, as the MimeType entry is empty. Upstream should be informed so that the
line can be removed.
- BSL (Boost) license
src/clew.cpp lists:
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
// (See accompanying file license.txt)
license.txt should be included, as the Boost license requires that. :-/
Upstream should be informed (License field is fine)
- examples in /usr/share
The .c files (examplesOCLformulas) probably do not need to be installed at all,
but their presence currently throws up an rpmlint warning. The other examples
could be split into a noarch subpackage, but that is just a suggestion.
- rpmlint spelling errors
Bogus, ignore.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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), BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated. 48 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/david/checkout/rpms/mandelbulber/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]:
[Bug 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613
--- Comment #5 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com ---
I read that , But First Line in Article ::
Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make
install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} works.
Not only this way but also %%make_install macro doesn't work , Otherwise
Gtkdialog isn't include old libs or any thing that forbid this way.
Mosaab.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076916] Review Request: git-cal - GitHub-like contributions calendar on terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076916
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of
[Bug 493530] Review Request: perl-Data-Dumper-Names - Data::Dumper::Names module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493530 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Data-Dumper-Names New Branches: el6 Owners: pghmcfc InitialCC: perl-sig Needed for Test::Most; I (pghmcfc) am already maintainer for EPEL-7. -- 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 493531] Review Request: perl-Test-Most - Test::Most Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493531 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Test-Most New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: pghmcfc InitialCC: perl-sig I (pghmcfc) am already maintainer of perl-Test-Most for EPEL-7. -- 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 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- And, where is the desktop file? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
