[Bug 1081726] Review Request: CutyCapt - A small command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081726 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: CutyCapt - |qt5-CutyCapt - A small |A small command-line |command-line utility to |utility to capture WebKit's |capture WebKit's rendering |rendering of a web page |of a web page | --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- I noticed that I missed the reference to LGPL, so I've amended the License tag. I believe I also incorrectly named this package with a qt5- prefix, which I think is just for packages that are part of the base Qt5 software. I've renamed to just CutyCapt. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/CutyCapt.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/CutyCapt/SRPMS/CutyCapt-0-0.2.20130714svn.fc21.src.rpm * Sat Mar 29 2014 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 0-0.2.20130714svn - rename to CutyCapt - include copies of both GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 - amend License tag (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4) I only have one question about the license - It is my understanding that license not provided by upstream cannot be included. Please clarify. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text which states: In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases, anywhere), the packager should do their best to point out this confusion to upstream. However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either: - Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1047788] Review Request: python-naftawayh - Arabic word tagger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047788 Leon Weber l...@leonweber.de changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|l...@leonweber.de |nob...@fedoraproject.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 1047788] Review Request: python-naftawayh - Arabic word tagger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047788 Leon Weber l...@leonweber.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #4 from Leon Weber l...@leonweber.de --- Sorry, I think someone else should do the review. There doesn’t seem to be any English documentation whatsoever, so as I don’t know Arabic, I can’t really check if the package is working. I can give you some hints though: It would be good if you could ask upstream to provide at least some rough documentation in English (a README file maybe), and also to include the license in a COPYING file (currently the only way to find out the license is the tag in the setup.py file, which isn’t optimal. I don’t know if it states the license on the website because it’s Arabic only). You can skip the Group:-tag in the spec file. Otherwise the package looks okay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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: 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 #6 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4) I only have one question about the license - It is my understanding that license not provided by upstream cannot be included. Please clarify. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text which states: In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases, anywhere), the packager should do their best to point out this confusion to upstream. However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either: - Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. Hi! Sorry - I think I was not very clear. I had referred to the guidelines and what I wanted to ask is actually in the quoted text - However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included Is this (unresponsive/unable, etc.) the case or would you prefer to wait a couple of days for upstream to (potentially) add the license? If you think it does not make a big difference, I am perfectly fine with approving the package as my understanding is that the current status is still in compliance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 999047] Review Request: xstream14 - Java XML serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999047 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-03-29 10:19:49 -- 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 962836] Review Request: beanvalidation-tck - Bean Validation (JSR 349) TCK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962836 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-03-29 10:21:06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962839] Review Request: hibernate-validator5 - Bean Validation 1.1 (JSR 349) Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962839 Bug 962839 depends on bug 962836, which changed state. Bug 962836 Summary: Review Request: beanvalidation-tck - Bean Validation (JSR 349) TCK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962836 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962836] Review Request: beanvalidation-tck - Bean Validation (JSR 349) TCK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962836 Bug 962836 depends on bug 962838, which changed state. Bug 962838 Summary: Review Request: jboss-test-audit - Test Audit Utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962838 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962838] Review Request: jboss-test-audit - Test Audit Utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962838 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-03-29 10:21:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #2 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- (In reply to David Dick from comment #1) 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) Good catch; fixed in -2. 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) I don't think this is needed. ExtUtils::MakeMaker is used in two places: 1. In Makefile.PL, where version 6.30 is wanted. However, the package is built using Module::Build::Tiny and doesn't actually use Makefile.PL, so this one doesn't matter. 2. In t/00-report-prereqs.t, where any version is OK. Hence I omitted the version requirement. In practice, this version requirement really doesn't matter. Version 6.30 is available all the way back to EL-5, whilst Path::Tiny (also required by the module) can only be built for F-19 onwards due to its requirement for File::Spec ≥ 3.40, so the version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker will always be OK. 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-0.010-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081726] Review Request: 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 #7 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #6) Is this (unresponsive/unable, etc.) the case or would you prefer to wait a couple of days for upstream to (potentially) add the license? Unfortunately, the response from upstream so far comes under the unwilling category. There is a possibility that upstream will change their mind. I don't think that should by itself hold back the introduction of this package into Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081726] Review Request: CutyCapt - A small command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081726 Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- Yup! Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- guru2018 2014-03-27 06:05:55 EDT Guru Please fill in your full name in the bugzilla account preferences. SRPM URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.i686.rpm That's not a source RPM package. During package review, if you keep the Spec URL: and SRPM URL: lines up-to-date, you can point the fedora-review tool at this ticket and let it perform many helpful checks: fedora-review -b 1081434 Clear the 'NotReady' tag from the ticket's Whiteboard when there is something to review. http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.i686.rpm Not repeating the comments on bug 1052060, but listing the package contents reveals that the /usr/include/IP2Locone directory is not included (and that's not a thing specific to packaging for Fedora): $ rpmls -p ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc17.i686.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/IP2Loc/IP2Loc_DBInterface.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/IP2Loc/IP2Location.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/IP2Loc/imath.h lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib/libIP2Location.so lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib/libIP2Location.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/libIP2Location.so.1.0.0 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/ip2location-c-6.0.3 -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ip2location-c-6.0.3/Developers_Guide.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ip2location-c-6.0.3/README https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket,
fedora-review -b 1078588
since it performs many helpful checks (it takes the package from the Spec/SRPM
URLs).
License: GPLv2+
Can't confirm that. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
BuildRoot:$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
This is a no-op, because if you wanted to use the default $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you
would not need to set the BuildRoot tag. Also notice:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
BuildRequires:make gcc
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 )
%install
rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
Buildroot is emptied automatically nowadays.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
%{make_install} PREFIX=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr
install -m 755 -d ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
That's a questionable order of those two commands. How could make install
create anything in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, if that one didn't exist yet?
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
If you want to target EL5, either be explicit about that (and reuse the same
spec for multiple dist targets) or consider forking the spec for EL.
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%defattr is not needed anymore for any of the active Fedora releases and not
even current EL5 either.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
%doc %{_mandir}/man1/*
Files below %_mandir are marked as %doc implicitly. See rpm -E
%__docdir_path.
rpmlint tells:
Checking: ts-0.7.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
ts-0.7.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
ts.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://viric.name/soft/ts/ urlopen error
timed out
ts.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://viric.name/soft/ts/ urlopen error timed
out
ts.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Wed Mar 18 2014
Jean-Marie Renouard jmrenou...@gmail.com - 0.7.4-1
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Especially the %changelog errors ought to be corrected, since e.g. date tells
that Mar 18 2014 is a Tuesday.
$ rpmls -p ts-0.7.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ts
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/ts.1.gz
License file is not included:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
And no documentation files are included except for the manual page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
build.log
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
This has been a brief first look only.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-smarterclayton-go-systemd-0-0.4.git5cb9e9e.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1000799] Review Request: ulatencyd - Daemon to minimize latency on a Linux system using cgroups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000799 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Christopher thank you for take review, but it is really not ready yet (you have cler that flag). By provided link you may find hot and interesting discussing about libraries unbundling. Author is very kind and most issues resolved. But there big problem with procps - current Fedora version can't be linked shared because does not export required symbols. So, we should wait. -- 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 1081726] Review Request: 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 #9 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Thanks Mukundan! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 David Dick dd...@cpan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- Agreed. 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 1081726] Review Request: CutyCapt - A small command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081726 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: CutyCapt Short Description: A small command-line utility to capture WebKit's rendering of a web page Owners: jamielinux Branches: f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081966] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny - Path::Tiny types and coercions for Moose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081966 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-MooseX-Types-Path-Tiny Short Description: Path::Tiny types and coercions for Moose Owners: pghmcfc Branches: f20 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig Thanks for the review 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 977638] Review Request: python-espeak - Python bindings for espeak
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977638 --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-espeak-0.5-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-espeak-0.5-7.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 1075218] Review Request: pam_ldap2krb - password migration tool ldap to kerberos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075218
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
License: GPLv3
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
These scriptlets are not needed, because the package does not store any shared
libraries in runtime linker's search path. The PAM Modules are located within a
private path.
%files
%doc README
%{_sysconfdir}/pam_ldap2krb.conf
These two apply here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 965095] python-rsa - Pure-Python RSA implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965095 Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2013-07-09 21:31:01 |2014-03-29 21:46:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058094] SCM Request: sylpheed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058094 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-03-29 23:27:45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074651] Review Request: xcb-util-cursor - Cursor library on top of libxcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074651 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- From the koji build log I saw this: checking for doxygen... no configure: WARNING: doxygen not found - documentation targets will be skipped WIll you consider adding BR doxygen and put docs to -devel? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 998483] Review Request: granite - GTK extensions for elementary applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998483 --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- 0.2.3.1 is out. I will review this once you update the package. I hope you can create a new bug and mark this as duplicate of the one you create. Thanks. -- 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 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804125
--- Comment #24 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
1. F20+ has solved this bug, you can drop these:
# we don't want to provide private python extension libs, snippet from:
# http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
%{?filter_setup:
%filter_provides_in %{python_sitearch}/.*\.so$
%filter_setup
}
2. %package devel
Summary:Development files for %{name}
Group: Development/Libraries
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: cmake
Requires: python2-devel
Requires: boost-devel
%{?_isa} should be used for all Requires.
3. A software suite for chemical informatics, computational chemistry,
and predictive modeling
Missing a dot.
4. %{python_sitearch} -- %{python2_sitearch}
5. All Group tags can be dropped.
6. Project has moved to github, with a new version:
https://github.com/rdkit/rdkit/releases
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-30 00:59:10 -- 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 994859] Review Request: python-pygit2 - Python bindings for libgit2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994859 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #45 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-pygit2 New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku bochecha -- 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 1079484] Review Request: python-lazy - Lazy attributes for python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079484 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080669] Review Request: vertica-python - A native Python adapter for the Vertica database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080669 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #9) 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. It's better to patch it out, koji doesn't have internet connection. But it's your turn. PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081026] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081026 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Koji built fine. License file issued upstream. Spelling errors cleaned. Once addressed over, I will post new SPEC + SRPM here again. 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 1079618] Review Request: perl-MooX-late - Easily translate Moose code to Moo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079618 David Dick dd...@cpan.org 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
