[Bug 1079615] Review Request: perl-MooX-HandlesVia - NativeTrait-like behavior for Moo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079615 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-28 23:53:49 --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius --- Package is in rawhide, now. f20 waits is waiting for perl-Data-Perl to be pushed. f19 waits for perl-Data-Perl and updated versions of perl-Role-Tiny and perl-Moo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079618] Review Request: perl-MooX-late - Easily translate Moose code to Moo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079618 Bug 1079618 depends on bug 1079615, which changed state. Bug 1079615 Summary: Review Request: perl-MooX-HandlesVia - NativeTrait-like behavior for Moo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079615 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 1082193] Review Request: perl-Date-Easter - Calculates Easter for any given year
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082193 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2014-03-28 22:17:08 --- Comment #2 from David Dick --- Unfortunately, the Artistic License (which this package is licensed as) falls under bad licenses in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses i will attempt to check with the author about re-licensing this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1082193] Review Request: perl-Date-Easter - Calculates Easter for any given year
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082193 --- Comment #1 from David Dick --- koji rawhide build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6685897 koji el6 build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6685906 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1082193] New: Review Request: perl-Date-Easter - Calculates Easter for any given year
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082193 Bug ID: 1082193 Summary: Review Request: perl-Date-Easter - Calculates Easter for any given year Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dd...@cpan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Date-Easter.spec SRPM URL: http://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Date-Easter-1.14-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Calculates Easter for any given year Fedora Account System Username: ddick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081966] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny - Path::Tiny types and coercions for Moose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081966 --- Comment #1 from David Dick --- Package built ok for rawhide only at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6685344 FIX BR: Moose::Conflicts (t/zzz-check-breaks.t line 9, currently packaged as part of perl-Moose) TODO: BR: ExtUtils::MakeMaker >= 6.30 (Makefile.PL line 10). This is such an old version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker that it is irrelevant (possibly excluding EL5) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081726] Review Request: qt5-CutyCapt - A small command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081726
--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
I only have one question about the license - It is my understanding that
license not provided by upstream cannot be included.
Please clarify.
Other than that - no issues.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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:
"GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1081726-qt5-CutyCapt/licensecheck.txt
---> No problem here. License is stated in the source file.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 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).
[!]: 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.
---> The license file is not present in upstream source (not part of SVN
checkout) but has been added. It is my understanding that this is not allowed.
Please clarify.
[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.
---> email sent to upstream is mentioned.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
---> The license file is not present in upstream source (not part of SVN
checkout) but has been added. It is my understanding that this is not allowed.
Please clarify.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
---> sou
[Bug 1081966] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny - Path::Tiny types and coercions for Moose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081966 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dd...@cpan.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dd...@cpan.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-maxmin Short Description: Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: 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 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen --- Thanks for another review, Zbigniew! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080498] Review Request: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080498 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd-0-0.4.git5cb9e9e.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd-0-0.4.git5cb9e9e.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080498] Review Request: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080498 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd-0-0.4.git5cb9e9e.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd-0-0.4.git5cb9e9e.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 1080498] Review Request: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080498 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd-0-0.4.git5cb9e9e.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd-0-0.4.git5cb9e9e.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080498] Review Request: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080498 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 344521] Review Request: fprobe-ulog - NetFlow probe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=344521 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- fprobe-ulog-1.1-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fprobe-ulog-1.1-7.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079753] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-connect - Provides HTTP/CONNECT proxy support for LWP::UserAgent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079753 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- Since this isn't going to old EPELs (judging by the other reviews), you may remove the line 35. Line 40 is also generally unneeded. Package the CHANGES and README files in %doc. You don't need to BR perl(Test::Exception) as you don't run the author tests. You should BR perl. You may use the usually preferred DESTDIR in place of PERL_INSTALL_ROOT. EE::MM knows this. "Provides" in your description should begin with a lowercase "p". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079753] Review Request: perl-LWP-Protocol-connect - Provides HTTP/CONNECT proxy support for LWP::UserAgent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079753 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040434] Review Request: python-webcolors - A library for working with HTML and CSS color names and value formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040434 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc19,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc19,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040434] Review Request: python-webcolors - A library for working with HTML and CSS color names and value formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040434 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc20,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc20,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040434] Review Request: python-webcolors - A library for working with HTML and CSS color names and value formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040434 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040433] Review Request: python-funcparserlib - Recursive descent parsing library based on functional combinators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040433 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc20,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc20,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040433] Review Request: python-funcparserlib - Recursive descent parsing library based on functional combinators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040433 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc19,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-webcolors-1.4-1.fc19,python-funcparserlib-0.3.6-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040433] Review Request: python-funcparserlib - Recursive descent parsing library based on functional combinators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040433 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894598] Review Request: coin-or-DyLP - Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894598 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894598] Review Request: coin-or-DyLP - Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894598 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 894597] Review Request: coin-or-Cbc - Coin-or branch and cut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894597 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 894597] Review Request: coin-or-Cbc - Coin-or branch and cut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894597 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894597] Review Request: coin-or-Cbc - Coin-or branch and cut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894597 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Paulo Andrade --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: coin-or-Cbc Short Description: Coin-or branch and cut Owners: pcpa 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 894598] Review Request: coin-or-DyLP - Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894598 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Paulo Andrade --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: coin-or-DyLP Short Description: Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm Owners: pcpa 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 1079615] Review Request: perl-MooX-HandlesVia - NativeTrait-like behavior for Moo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079615 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894598] Review Request: coin-or-DyLP - Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894598
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande ---
Directory /usr/include/coin owned by coin-or-CoinUtils-devel package; properly
listed.
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 106 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894598-coin-or-DyLP/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/coin
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/coin
[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.
[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 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in coin-or-
DyLP-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text file
[Bug 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079615] Review Request: perl-MooX-HandlesVia - NativeTrait-like behavior for Moo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079615 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 894598] Review Request: coin-or-DyLP - Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894598 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080498] Review Request: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080498 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1079749] Review Request: perl-Test-Image-GD - A module for testing images using GD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079749 --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata --- I see you've removed some of the old cruft Ralf pointed out but not all of it. Since the answer to "Do you intend to support rhel < 6?" is obviously "no", drop the line 33, too. There are still one more missing build-time dependencies you should add: perl, used in the spec perl(File::Spec::Functions), used in various tests For the optional tests, you may also buildrequire: perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.14 perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.04 Consider using the description from the POD instead of just paraphrasing the Summary. Package the README and Changes files as documentation, e.g. by adding the following to your %files section: %doc Changes README More tips: Line 39 is not needed and may be safely dropped. Sort your deps alphabetically; it's easier to maintain later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989792] Review Request: doublecmd-gtk2 - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager(Gtk2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989792 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #0) > Spec URL: http://cicku.me/doublecmd-gtk2.spec > SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/doublecmd-gtk2-0.5.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Error 404. Please provide new links. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079965] Review Request: python-dpath - python library for searching dictionaries using XPath-like expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079965
--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
I don't see any problems. Package APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1079965-python-
dpath/licensecheck.txt
---> Looks fine.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-dpath
---> Not applicable here.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
---> source1 is a shell script for generating source tarball. The script works
as intended.
[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.
---> koji build looks
[Bug 1079615] Review Request: perl-MooX-HandlesVia - NativeTrait-like behavior for Moo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079615 Ralf Corsepius 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 1066304] Review Request: python-progress - Easy to use progress bars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066304 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-progress-1.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-progress-1.2-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 --- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Thanks for the update. Looks good now :) You can request for git branching. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079484] Review Request: python-lazy - Lazy attributes for python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079484
--- Comment #4 from David Shea ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
> 1. mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/python-lazy-%{version}
> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/python3-lazy-%{version}
>
> Unversioned docdir changes are now in operation.
Removed -%{version} from all of the docdir paths.
>
> 2. Test suites found, can you test it in %check?
Done.
>
> 3. Please remove the egg shipped in tarball before building.
Removed in %prep, so the packaged .egg-info will be the one created during the
build.
> 4. python-devel --> python2-devel
Done.
v3:
SPEC URL: http://dshea.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy/v3/python-lazy.spec
SRPM URL:
http://dshea.fedorapeople.org/python-lazy/v3/python-lazy-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079749] Review Request: perl-Test-Image-GD - A module for testing images using GD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079749 --- Comment #4 from Sven Nierlein --- Thanks. Yes, i currently don't intend to support older releases and will focus on the upcoming ones. I will update the specs and src rpms and upload them over the weekend. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079615] Review Request: perl-MooX-HandlesVia - NativeTrait-like behavior for Moo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079615 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-MooX-HandlesVia Short Description: NativeTrait-like behavior for Moo Owners: corsepiu Branches: f19 f20 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 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Paulo Andrade --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: coin-or-Vol Short Description: Vol (Volume Algorithm) Owners: pcpa 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 1079484] Review Request: python-lazy - Lazy attributes for python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079484 --- Comment #5 from David Shea --- And now that the docdir paths are correct there's no need to list the default _pkgdocdir in the %files for python-lazy, so I removed the %doc line from the v3 SPEC and SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080201] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-GD - A Catalyst View for GD images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080201 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #15 from Mo Morsi --- (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #14) > It's really important that you understand this and the reasons why this is > bad. We need to avoid the appearance that Fedora is ignoring or changing > authors' rights under copyright law. +1, Nitesh also please make sure to incorporate _all_ feedback into package updates. Even if this means taking an extra day or two to double check you got everything. It saves the reviewer from wasting time. 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 1080201] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-GD - A Catalyst View for GD images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080201 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- I'll review your package submissions and possibly sponsor you, too :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 David Howells changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from David Howells --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xtrace Short Description: A program for X11 protocol tracing Owners: dhowells 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 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande ---
Just some warning or failed tests during check process.
Directory /usr/include/coin owned by coin-or-CoinUtils-devel package; properly
listed.
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894593-coin-or-Vol/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/coin
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/coin
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in coin-or-
Vol-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text fil
[Bug 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 --- Comment #7 from Paulo Andrade --- Thanks, the errors and warnings are supposed to be expected thus the (expected) line below :-) [...] WARNING vol solution value before solve eq(correctObjValue,siObjValue) OsiSolverInterfaceTest.cpp:3834 ERROR vol testLoadAndAssignProblem: base initialSolve (expected) base->initialSolve() threw CoinError: Volume algorithm is unable to handle ranged rows in OsiVolSolverInterface in checkData_ OsiSolverInterfaceTest.cpp:2672 WARNING vol testAddToEmptySystem (expected) addCol adds columns to NULL OsiSolverInterfaceTest.cpp:3204 WARNING vol testAddToEmptySystem (expected) addCol adds columns to NULL OsiSolverInterfaceTest.cpp:3244 ERROR vol testWriteMps: solving LP (expected) si1->initialSolve() threw CoinError: Volume algorithm is unable to handle ranged rows in OsiVolSolverInterface in checkData_ OsiSolverInterfaceTest.cpp:2409 ERROR vol testWriteLp: solving LP (expected) si1->initialSolve() threw CoinError: Volume algorithm is unable to handle ranged rows in OsiVolSolverInterface in checkData_ OsiSolverInterfaceTest.cpp:2461 Severity NOTE :9 thereof expected:8 Severity PASSED: 425 thereof expected:0 Severity WARNING :3 thereof expected:2 Severity ERROR :3 thereof expected:3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894597] Review Request: coin-or-Cbc - Coin-or branch and cut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894597 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894594] Review Request: coin-or-Bcp - Branch-Cut-Price Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894594 --- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcp.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894597] Review Request: coin-or-Cbc - Coin-or branch and cut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894597 --- Comment #4 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cbc.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cbc-2.8.9-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079965] Review Request: python-dpath - python library for searching dictionaries using XPath-like expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079965 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894598] Review Request: coin-or-DyLP - Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894598 --- Comment #4 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-DyLP.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-DyLP-1.9.4-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079499] Review Request: sockperf - network benchmarking utility for testing latency and throughput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079499 --- Comment #3 from Michal Schmidt --- By the way, I've proposed a patch to make %autosetup usable for my purposes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082038 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 --- Comment #13 from David Howells --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #12) > If you still insist to keep buildid then change the define word to global as > per recommended by packaging guidelines. Fixed. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dhowells/xtrace/xtrace-1.3.1-5.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080498] Review Request: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080498 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #16 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I am really sorry for the missed out thing. I will make sure that I don't make these kind of mistakes in the future. SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-7.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 --- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Vol.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Vol-1.4.4-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080498] Review Request: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd - Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080498 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd Short Description: Go bindings to systemd D-BUS APIs Owners: lsm5 Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: golang-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 1079749] Review Request: perl-Test-Image-GD - A module for testing images using GD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079749 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Blocks||1080201 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080201 [Bug 1080201] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-GD - A Catalyst View for GD images -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989792] Review Request: doublecmd-gtk2 - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager(Gtk2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989792 --- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner --- http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/doublecmd/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989791] Review Request: doublecmd-qt4 - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager(Qt4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989791 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||raph...@web.de --- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #7) > Any progress here...? http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/doublecmd/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080201] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-GD - A Catalyst View for GD images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080201 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1079749 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079749 [Bug 1079749] Review Request: perl-Test-Image-GD - A module for testing images using GD -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078470] Review Request: nodejs-maxmin - Get pretty output of the original, minified gzipped size of a string/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078470
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(zbys...@in.waw.pl |
|) |
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[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.
Pull request submitted.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
[Bug 1055500] Review Request: libgssh - Friendly GIO wrapper for libssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055500 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(puiterwijk@redhat | |.com) | --- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Sorry, I had been waiting for a new release with the external libgsystem. This release has now been made, and I updated the package. New Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//libgssh.spec New SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//libgssh-2014.2-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1033037] Review Request: undbx - Outlook Express .dbx files extractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033037 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 969812] Review Request: hg-git - Mercurial Plugin for Communicating with Git Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969812 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1058174] Review Request: ghc-aeson-pretty - JSON pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058174 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1066304] Review Request: python-progress - Easy to use progress bars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066304 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1058174] Review Request: ghc-aeson-pretty - JSON pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058174 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069882] Review Request: python-ironicclient - Ironic client for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069882 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066304] Review Request: python-progress - Easy to use progress bars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066304 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069882] Review Request: python-ironicclient - Ironic client for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069882 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 544531] Review Request: xvkbd - Virtual Keyboard for X Window System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544531 Jon Ciesla 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 1033037] Review Request: undbx - Outlook Express .dbx files extractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033037 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 969812] Review Request: hg-git - Mercurial Plugin for Communicating with Git Servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969812 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 544531] Review Request: xvkbd - Virtual Keyboard for X Window System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544531 --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1079499] Review Request: sockperf - network benchmarking utility for testing latency and throughput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079499 --- Comment #2 from Michal Schmidt --- I prefer having the prepped tree as a git tree for the same reasons the wiki page mentions: "The resulting build directory can be used for bisecting problems introduced in patches, and developing new patches from the build directory is more natural than with gendiff." As to why I am using a sequence of 6 git commands and not simply "%autosetup -S git": I have nicely git formatted patch files, but autosetup applies them internally using "git apply", thus losing the commit messages. Using "git am" gives better results. Applying patches this way is an often used idiom. systemd or xorg-x11-server are examples of Fedora packages that apply patches this way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 --- Comment #85 from Rex Dieter --- You could do all separate tarballs (and packaging) if you want, but that will be more work and isn't necessarily. Creating subpkgs from psi-plus (which includes those items already) as suggested here is sufficient. For example, we'll likely end up back having problems where psi-plus using internal headers/apis, and having to worry about fixing all that. Not that fixing such things would be bad, but it would likely mean even more time/work before psi-plus would pass review and get into fedora. -- 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 1080669] Review Request: vertica-python - A native Python adapter for the Vertica database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080669 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jedelsky --- SPEC URL: in first commen(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7) > [!]: Buildroot is not present > Note: Buildroot: present but not needed > > 1. Fix [!]. > > 2. Question: > > BuildRequires: python-pip > > Why? Buildroot removed from spec file. New SRPM: http://s.stderr.cz/rpm/vertica-python-0.2.0-4.fc21.src.rpm python-pip answered Lubo above - it's because of setup.py script. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069882] Review Request: python-ironicclient - Ironic client for Openstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069882 Angus Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Angus Thomas --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-ironicclient Short Description: A python and command line client library for Ironic Owners: athomas 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 1081966] New: Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny - Path::Tiny types and coercions for Moose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081966 Bug ID: 1081966 Summary: Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny - Path::Tiny types and coercions for Moose Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny/branches/fedora/perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny/perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny-0.010-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This module provides Path::Tiny types for Moose. It handles two important types of coercion: * Coercing objects with overloaded stringification * Coercing to absolute paths It also can check to ensure that files or directories exist. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #14 from Ken Dreyer --- Hi Nitesh, the copyright statement in the rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-6.fc20.src.rpm's MIT-LICENSE file still contains the factual errors indicated in Comment 12. Please see https://github.com/igrigorik/em-socksify/blob/master/MIT-LICENSE . It's really important that you understand this and the reasons why this is bad. We need to avoid the appearance that Fedora is ignoring or changing authors' rights under copyright law. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080669] Review Request: vertica-python - A native Python adapter for the Vertica database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080669 --- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel --- > BuildRequires: python-pip > > Why? setup.py imports it (possibly to list or install missing dependencies). Not something we'd need, but it throws an exception upon import attempt if not present. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065490] Review Request: perl-BSSolv - A new approach to package dependency solving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065490
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
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:
"Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck:
Unknown or generated
perl-BSSolv-0.01/BSSolv.pm
perl-BSSolv-0.01/BSSolv.xs
[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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
= 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{
[Bug 1080669] Review Request: vertica-python - A native Python adapter for the Vertica database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080669 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 1081949 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081949] Review Request: python-vertica - Unofficial Vertica Python driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081949 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||cicku...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-03-28 05:59:30 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1080669 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081949] New: Review Request: python-vertica - Unofficial Vertica Python driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081949 Bug ID: 1081949 Summary: Review Request: python-vertica - Unofficial Vertica Python driver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lkund...@v3.sk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/python-vertica.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/python-vertica-0.2.0-4.el7.src.rpm mockbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6681672 Description: vertica-python is a native Python adapter for the Vertica (http://www.vertica.com) database. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1005406] Review Request: python-happybase - Python library to interact with Apache HBase
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005406 Bug 1005406 depends on bug 1005405, which changed state. Bug 1005405 Summary: Review Request: python-thrift - Thrift Python Software Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005405 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA -- 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 1005405] Review Request: python-thrift - Thrift Python Software Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005405 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2014-03-28 05:12:04 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- Conflicts with python-thrift in the repo(from "thrift" package) at least. -- 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 1010741] Review Request: python-nikola - Static website and blog generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010741 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cicku...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #38 from Christopher Meng --- pong. I will review it in the weekend. -- 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 1079499] Review Request: sockperf - network benchmarking utility for testing latency and throughput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079499 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- What's the rationale of BR git to apply the patches? You can try %autosetup macro: http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/Autosetup -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
