[Bug 1069635] Review Request: derrick - A Simple Network Stream Recorder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069635
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
1. %configure should insert the cflags properly, you can remove
CFLAGS=%{optflags}.
removed
2. * Tue Aug 13 2013 Fabian Affolter xxx - 0.3-1.s
0.3-1.s is invalid.
removed the char form versioning
%changelog
* Tue Apr 08 2014 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch - 0.3-2
- Remove compiler flag and char from versioning
Updated files:
SPEC file: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/derrick.spec
SRPM: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/derrick-0.3-2.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 845115] Review request: python-django-recaptcha - A Django application for adding ReCAPTCHA to a form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845115 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bazanlui...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(bazanluis20@gmail ||.com) --- Comment #20 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- I just stumbled upon this: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/captcha is already owned and used by python-django-simple-captcha So, this package conflicts with python-django-simple-captcha Would it be possible to rename that dir in this package here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077762] Review Request: rubygem-bcrypt - Wrapper around bcrypt() password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077762 Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-04-08 03:12:45 -- 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 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 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
[Bug 1084945] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-Timeout - IO::Socket with read/write timeout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084945 --- Comment #2 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- updated spec and srpm files to allow building against el6. koji build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6717207 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075563] Review Request: nodejs-ansicolors - Functions that surround a string with ansicolor codes so it prints in color
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075563 Tomas Hrcka thr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-04-08 03:38:39 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
License: GPLv2+
Where does it say GPLv2 or later?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
The file COPYING is License: GPLv2, and the source files don't tell or
later:
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
same as comment 2
%doc %{_datadir}/ts/*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
%build
make %{?_smp_mflags}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
In particular, it will be a small exercise to figure out whether you can use a
trick such as
%configure || :
make %{?_smp_mflags}
to reuse the flags exported by the %configure macro (see rpm -E %configure), or
whether it will be necessary to activate the flags via a different way (e.g. by
patching the Makefile).
* fedora-review also says:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
http://viric.name/soft/ts/ts-0.7.4.tar.gz
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
ts.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://viric.name/soft/ts/ urlopen error [Errno
-2] Name or service not known
ts.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/ts/COPYING
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1085132] Review Request: python-django-sahara - Sahara plugin for OpenStack dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085132 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- You should put a enabled file to /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/enabled comparable to https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_dashboard/enabled/_20_admin.py That would load and enable sahara directly in horizon (after httpd restart) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dpath-1.2-0.2.70.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dpath-1.2-0.2.70.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 1079965] Review Request: python-dpath - python library for searching dictionaries using XPath-like expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079965 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dpath-1.2-0.2.70.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dpath-1.2-0.2.70.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 1079436] Review Request: openstack-tuskar-ui - The UI component for Tuskar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079436
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com ---
egg-info: you need to remove the provided egg-info in %prep. It will be
re-created during build.
I'm a bit worried about:
# Move static files to horizon. These require that you compile them again
# post install { python manage.py compress }
What do you mean by that? Given that upstream moves to node.js again, (thanks
to some voices calling for replacing lesscpy with node.js), that will require
to have node.js installed at each horizon host, to re-run the compress step.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079436] Review Request: openstack-tuskar-ui - The UI component for Tuskar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079436 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #3) BTW I see that horizon itself still has Requires: python-pbr which would be good to remove if possible too. For reference here's what I did a few days ago for neutron: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/openstack-neutron.git/commit/?id=f6328558 Anyway this is a nice to have but not blocking Ideally, this will be solved upstream. FWIW, I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1304253 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 David Dick dd...@cpan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- koji build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6717326 Licensing ok. Build and Runtime Dependencies ok. 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 1084945] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-Timeout - IO::Socket with read/write timeout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084945 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Data-Tumbler Short Description: Dynamic generation of nested combinations Owners: pghmcfc Branches: f19 f20 el6 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 1059708] Review Request: phodav - a WebDAV server using libsoup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059708 --- Comment #15 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lur...@redhat.com --- and it should also be announced over avahi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1056555] Review Request: ioprocess - process to perform risky IO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056555 --- Comment #9 from Saggi Mizrahi smizr...@redhat.com --- OK I think we got everything. http://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/ioprocess/ioprocess-0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm http://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/ioprocess/ioprocess-0.3.tar.gz http://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/ioprocess/ioprocess.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084976] Review Request: eclipse-xsd - XML Schema Definition (XSD) Eclipse plug-in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084976 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com --- I'll review this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084945] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-Timeout - IO::Socket with read/write timeout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084945 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- TODO: perl(Cwd) is not needed in our case; you may drop that dependency. No issues, approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1085352] New: Review Request: mingw-opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085352 Bug ID: 1085352 Summary: Review Request: mingw-opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: amigad...@amigadave.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/mingw-opusfile.spec SRPM URL: http://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/mingw-opusfile-0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: libopusfile provides a high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files. It includes: * Support for all files with at least one Opus stream (including multichannel files or Ogg files where Opus is muxed with something else). * Full support, including seeking, for chained files. * A simple stereo downmixing API (allowing chained files to be decoded with a single output format, even if the channel count changes). * Support for reading from a file, memory buffer, or over HTTP(S) (including seeking). * Support for both random access and streaming data sources. Fedora Account System Username: amigadave Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6717893 I have tested the resulting build with EasyTAG built for MinGW, and it builds and runs fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #7 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Ok, this is better. Two more things, though. 1. Can you explain the MIDDLE DOTs in your %description? 2. Some people care about bumping the Release with every new submission, even for reviews. I do not, however you can't have multiple changelog entries for the same NVR. Either merge them into one or bump the Release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #8 from Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de --- There was a complain about the NEVR in #1079733 already, so i will bump the number and upload new files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Data-Tumbler-0.005-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Tumbler-0.005-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Data-Tumbler-0.005-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Tumbler-0.005-2.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 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084942] Review Request: perl-Data-Tumbler - Dynamic generation of nested combinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084942 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Data-Tumbler-0.005-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Tumbler-0.005-2.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 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 psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Ok, this looks good. Approving. I've also sponsored you for the Packager group. Welcome to Fedora :) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059
--- Comment #22 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- Please, use %{?dist} in the Release tag.
- You can fix rpmlint's 'hardcoded-library-path' error by defining
a macro as done for 'yum'
%global yum_pluginslib /usr/lib/yum-plugins
...
%{yum_pluginslib}/axelget.py*
- Fix release number increments, in %Changelog
* Mon Apr 07 2014 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-1.20140407svn14
* Wed Oct 02 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-2.20130621svn12
* Fri Jun 21 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-1.20130621svn12
* Thu Jun 20 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-1.20130620svn12
That which determines the increase in %{X}.%{posttag} is X, so
* Mon Apr 07 2014 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-4.20140407svn14
* Wed Oct 02 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-3.20130621svn12
* Fri Jun 21 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-2.20130621svn12
* Thu Jun 20 2013 Andrea Veri av...@fedoraproject.org - 0.2-1.20130620svn12
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:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown
or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/958059-yum-axelget/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 --- Comment #10 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- Rex, do you take this review request or I should to find somebody else? Also may I include this package to Fedora 20 and Fedora 21 or only to 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 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 --- Comment #11 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- You may import new package in stable branches too. If you are willing I could take that 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 1084021] Review Request: openjpeg2 - C-Library for JPEG 2000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084021
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Čajka jca...@redhat.com ---
Hi, I have made review for you. Here is filled review form. There were few
problems.(ldconf,...)
My comment starts with JC:.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
JC: includes thirdparty libs sources under different
licences (zlib,libpng,libtiff) See further
winditrent.h are under MIT, are they used in build? Please check it.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/openjpeg-2.0
JC: Owns just Cmake files for devel, not the dir. Is it right place?
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/openjpeg-2.0
JC: Same as above.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
JC: Can you remove thirdparty libs from package ?(delete all except Cmake
file or ...)
[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.
JC: SubPackages Require: bad format %{name}-libs%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} redundant '-libs'(should be like %{name}%{?_isa} = ...)
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
JC: Library is not registered with ldconf.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openjpeg.mirror/files/openjpeg-2.0.0-svn20140403.tar.gz
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 --- Comment #12 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- Pavel, it will be very good if you take that review. Anyway need some comments from Rex. Now Fedora has qjdns as subpackage of iris. Need to be careful with this and don't break anything. Also need to apply patch for iris to use new jdns. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063428] Review Request: rubygem-bogus - Create fakes to make your isolated unit tests reliable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063428 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063428] Review Request: rubygem-bogus - Create fakes to make your isolated unit tests reliable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063428 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-bogus-0.1.4-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-bogus-0.1.4-2.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 1084021] Review Request: openjpeg2 - C-Library for JPEG 2000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084021 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Čajka jca...@redhat.com --- Issues: - library not registred with ldconf - winditrent.h with MIT licence please check if it is used in build - can you remove thirdparty libs - incorrect Require: package name in subpackages - package doesnt own all created dirs Minor: - can you enable build-in tests ? - invalid source URI (sourceforge.net) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #29 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Package Change Request == Package Name: fakeroot New Branches: epel7 Owners: lkundrak Whoops wrong package name. Sorry. -- 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 1078994] Review Request: milou - Plasma applet for searching almost anything
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078994 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- Updated to latest upstream snapshot (which includes libmilou SONAME) and fix the license issue. Spec URL: http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/spec/milou.spec SRPM URL: http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/spec/milou-0.1-0.1.20140408git.fc20.src.rpm Successful Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6718223 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226324] Merge Review: psutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226324 --- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Created attachment 884104 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=884104action=edit Proposed packaging fixes OK to apply this patch? I intend to apply it unless the nominal maintainer objects within the next 24 hours. It is supposed to fix the perl-related and hardcoded man/*.gz issues, but for now leaves the package-split issue alone. -- 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 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 --- Comment #23 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- Both fixed. The hardcoded-library-path rpmlint error is still error even after putting the define in place, but trying to rpmlint the yum-utils package (which uses the same define) reported the same issue. The issue is probably related to rpmlint itself, so it's definitely a false positive. The new SRPM: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-5.20140407svn14.fc20.src.rpm and SPEC: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec 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 1085132] Review Request: python-django-sahara - Sahara plugin for OpenStack dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085132 --- Comment #2 from mimcc...@redhat.com --- Matthias, thanks for the suggestion. I have added a blueprint to the upstream project for the inclusion of an enable file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078994] Review Request: milou - Plasma applet for searching almost anything
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078994
--- Comment #3 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com ---
Output from rpmlint:
Checking: milou-0.1-0.1.20140408git.fc21.x86_64.rpm
milou-0.1-0.1.20140408git.fc21.src.rpm
milou.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/milou HTTP Error 500: Internal
Server Error
milou.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libmilou.so
milou.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libmilou.so.0.1
milou.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libmilou.so.0.1
milou.src: W: invalid-url URL:
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kdereview/milou HTTP Error 500: Internal
Server Error
milou.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
milou.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
milou.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot}
milou.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12)
milou.src: W: invalid-url Source0: milou-0.1.20140408git.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.
I guess that relevant are only these:
milou.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libmilou.so.0.1
milou.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libmilou.so.0.1
milou.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1085441] New: Review Request: openstack-sahara - Apache Hadoop cluster management on OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085441 Bug ID: 1085441 Summary: Review Request: openstack-sahara - Apache Hadoop cluster management on OpenStack Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mimcc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/elmiko/fedorapkg_openstack-sahara/raw/master/openstack-sahara.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/elmiko/fedorapkg_openstack-sahara/raw/master/openstack-sahara-2014.1.rc1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Apache Hadoop cluster management on OpenStack Fedora Account System Username: mimccune This review request is for a version upgrade and a rename of the package openstack-savanna. I am not including the rpmlint output in this request as it generates several long warnings and a few errors. Some of the errors pertain to .py files beginning with a shbang and not having executable bits set, these files are used by distutils to create executable scripts during install. The remaining errors are all noted in the spec file. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6718510 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061747] Review Request: collections-generic - A generics-enabled version of Apache Commons-Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061747 --- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- If nobody complains, I'll move forward this review this week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 --- Comment #30 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 220888] Review Request: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Package approved. -- 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 1071653] Review Request: kmscon - KMS/DRM based System Console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071653 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com --- According to the report, the execstack issue should be fixed with recent binutils but is not available even in rawhide. Is there anythin left to fix beyond the make check verbosity ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084021] Review Request: openjpeg2 - C-Library for JPEG 2000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084021 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Re: tests : not practical, it requires a relatively large data set (though we can leave in hooks to do it offline occasionally, see openjpeg.spec for how it does it). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059659] Review Request: python-aniso8601 - library for parsing dates in ISO8601 format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059659
Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rb...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com ---
Looks good to me. Package is approved!
= 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:
GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/1059659
-python-aniso8601/licensecheck.txt
[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 102400 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.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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-aniso8601
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
[Bug 1071653] Review Request: kmscon - KMS/DRM based System Console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071653 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com --- I will check with fc20 i686 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6718769 I don't have a f19 i686 at hand -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059659] Review Request: python-aniso8601 - library for parsing dates in ISO8601 format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059659 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rb...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059659] Review Request: python-aniso8601 - library for parsing dates in ISO8601 format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059659 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059659] Review Request: python-aniso8601 - library for parsing dates in ISO8601 format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059659 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- I should have looked before leaping. jsedlak still needs to be sponsored into the packager group. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 --- Comment #13 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- I'd say safest plan would be to request F-20 branch (and up), but only build/test for rawhide initially. Once things are working ok, then can consider building updates for f20 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 1015253] Review Request: rubygem-svn2git - A tool for migrating SVN projects to Git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015253 --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- New version: * Tue Apr 08 2014 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com - 2.2.5-1 - Update to latest upstream version - Patch for Minitest 5 support Exact changes in Git: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/rubygem-svn2git.git/commit/?id=4e8b2b3ceb865e3ef4255749a83c9a47833bd662 Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-svn2git-2.2.5-1.fc21.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rubygem-svn2git.spec F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6718791 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040180] Review Request: rubygem-virtus - Attributes on Steroids for Plain Old Ruby Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040180 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-04-08 12:49:33 --- Comment #12 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Built for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=499100 Closing. Thanks again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info
---
You can built jdns library against Qt5 and it will be worked. But package
built against Qt4.
May it then be used to be linked with Qt5 application? If no, may be have worth
provide two versions out of the box?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages, Package
does not contain duplicates in %files.
%{_bindir}/jdns used in main package and -bin subpackage
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
See comments before about twice binarie included.
- Please include README.md in %doc
- Honestly I do not see worth to split that small package on so much
subpackages. I suggest include binary in main package and drop -bin subpackage
completely.
Also even main package requires libQtCore.so.4() (splitting to minimize
dependency may be some justification), so qjdns also seems redundant.
- Requires: qt4%{?_isa} seems redundant as it pulled automatically.
= 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:
MIT/X11 (BSD like).
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
%{_bindir}/jdns used in main package and -bin
[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.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
See comments before about twice binarie included.
[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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6718749
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6718812
[!]: Package installs properly.
Packages can't be installed separate:
$ LANG=C sudo rpm -Uhv jdns-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
jdns-bin-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libqjdns.so.2()(64bit) is needed by jdns-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64
libqjdns.so.2()(64bit) is needed by jdns-bin-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64
qjdns(x86-64) = 2.0.0-2.fc20 is needed by jdns-bin-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: jdns-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
qjdns-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
jdns-bin-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
jdns-devel-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
jdns-2.0.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
jdns.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multicast - Multics,
Simulcast
jdns.x86_64: W: spelling-error
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 --- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Re: Qt5 In my opinion, Qt5 support is only practical, if it's possible to install fully parallel-installable Qt4 and Qt5 versions without conflicts. What that means, is that the Qt5 version would need different library/soname, headers, etc... I suspect upstream does not support that (yet). So probably not something to consider now, but look forward to at some point in the future. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061747] Review Request: collections-generic - A generics-enabled version of Apache Commons-Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061747 --- Comment #6 from Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com --- I'd hold off on this review. The package has compilation issues on java8 and I am working on porting jung/oozie to commons-collections4. If both of those efforts are successful then this package won't be needed, and imo that's the ideal path. jung is the most dependent package, and I'm close to porting it to commons-collections4. I hope to complete jung in the next few days. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077791] Review Request: copr-backend - Backend for Copr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077791 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msu...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Miroslav, any news ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958059] Review Request: yum-axelget - A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: yum-axelget Short Description: Download accelerator plug-in for Yum Owners: averi Branches: f20 el7 InitialCC: averi -- 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 #4 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com --- I've updated the package: * Tue Apr 08 2014 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com - 2.5.241-2 - Use %%autosetup. Spec URL: http://michich.fedorapeople.org/sockperf/sockperf.spec SRPM URL: http://michich.fedorapeople.org/sockperf/sockperf-2.5.241-2.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 1079436] Review Request: openstack-tuskar-ui - The UI component for Tuskar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079436 --- Comment #8 from Jordan OMara jom...@redhat.com --- Based on irc convo with mrunge, we're not going to solve the compression issue in this package right at this moment. Updated spec, removes egg-info in %prep: spec: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/openstack-tuskar-ui.spec srpm: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/openstack-tuskar-ui-0.1.0-5.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 968947] Review Request: gallery3-openid - OpenID authentication for Gallery3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968947 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Any progress on this Patrick? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #7 from Jean-Marie Renouard jmrenou...@gmail.com --- A quick analysis shows that all files refers to COPYING file: /* Task Spooler - a task queue system for the unix user Copyright (C) 2007-2009 Lluís Batlle i Rossell Please find the license in the provided COPYING file. */ But 2 files have no headers: ./ttail.c et main.h [makerpm@localhost ts-0.7.4]$ find . -type f -iname '*.c' -o -iname '*.h' |sort /tmp/all.txt [makerpm@localhost ts-0.7.4]$ find . -type f -iname '*.c' -o -iname '*.h' | xargs -n 50 grep COPYING |cut -d: -f1| sort /tmp/withCOPYING.txt [makerpm@localhost ts-0.7.4]$ sdiff /tmp/all.txt /tmp/withCOPYING.txt ./client.c ./client.c ./env.c ./env.c ./error.c ./error.c ./execute.c ./execute.c ./info.c./info.c ./jobs.c./jobs.c ./list.c./list.c ./mail.c./mail.c ./main.c./main.c ./main.h ./msg.c ./msg.c ./msgdump.c ./msgdump.c ./print.c ./print.c ./server.c ./server.c ./server_start.c ./server_start.c ./signals.c ./signals.c ./tail.c./tail.c ./ttail.c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079436] Review Request: openstack-tuskar-ui - The UI component for Tuskar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079436 --- Comment #9 from Jordan OMara jom...@redhat.com --- Added unit tests It now buildrequires python-ironicclient and python-tuskarclient which are not in rawhide proper yet and thus the fedora-review package is not happy. However, the only added sections were the %check and a minor modification to %install where i copy, instead of move, static files. spec: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/openstack-tuskar-ui.spec srpm: http://fedorapeople.org/~jomara/openstack-tuskar-ui-0.1.0-6.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 1056555] Review Request: ioprocess - process to perform risky IO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056555
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dkuznets@redhat.c |fedora-review+
|om) |
--- Comment #10 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com ---
Hello Saggi,
Your package got approved but please update the Source0 to use http:// instead
of https://.
As you can see below fedora-review tool complains about it:
INFO: Downloading (Source0):
https://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/ioprocess/ioprocess-0.3.tar.gz
WARNING: Cannot download url:
https://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/ioprocess/ioprocess-0.3.tar.gz
I have updated locally Source0 to use http and it works.
After this, please follow:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
If you have any questions please let me know.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: 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), Unknown or generated. 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/ioprocess/ioprocess/licensecheck.txt
License package is GPLv2
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg
[Bug 982705] Review Request: meme - Use the command line to generate memes on memegenerator.co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982705 Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(allanrafaelroque@ ||gmail.com) --- Comment #3 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com --- Hi Allan, - Please address my comment#1: - %check # No present in source == Your spec say that there are no tests but looks like the source code provides (see below). Can you please double check? - Also update the spec with the last version of package (2.0.0 as I can see) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #8 from Jean-Marie Renouard jmrenou...@gmail.com --- 1° Since this week, web site is no more available: http://viric.name/soft/ts/ Strange situation :) 2° Licence RPM changed to License: GPLv2 3° main.h and ttail.c doesn't contains reference to COPYING file for licence. Source files make reference to COPYING file,is it right for Fedora team ? 4° incorrect-fsf-address in COPYING Nothing done for moment due to legal reason. (No patches on Licence) 5° Correct flags generated I add a patch in source with a empty configure so no errors are generated. 6° %clean section is now empty 7° Unowned directory /usr/bin/ts /usr/share/man/man1/ts.1.gz /usr/share/ts-0.7.4 /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/COPYING /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/Changelog /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/OBJECTIVES /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/PROTOCOL /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/README /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/TRICKS /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/buglist.bug /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/web /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/web/article_linux_com.html /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/web/index.html /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/web/ts-0.2.1.png /usr/share/ts-0.7.4/web/ts-0.5.4.ebuild All directories are included in the package now. For point 1,3,4, I direcly send a mail to ts developer for having his feddback. Spec URL: http://www.jmrenouard.fr/repo/ts.spec SRPM URL: http://www.jmrenouard.fr/repo/generic/sources/ts-0.7.4-3.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084021] Review Request: openjpeg2 - C-Library for JPEG 2000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084021 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review, I've fixed all the issues you pointed out, but while doing so I came across some additional points: - cmake does not seem to pick up the CFLAGS exported by %cmake: If I build with -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release, the compile flags are -ffast-math -O3 -DNDEBUG -fPIC where -ffast-math is explicitly added in the openjpeg CMakeLists.txt. What is the best way to get cmake to honour the CFLAGS env? - Rex, do you have any suggestions as to whether the optional components should be built? (MJ2, JPWL, JPIP, JPIP_SERVER, JP3D, Java bindings). I see you didn't build them in the 1.x 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 1084865] Review Request: python-bloom - Bloom is a release automation tool for catkin packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084865 Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- OK the package looks good now. This package is APPROVED. bloom-generate is still broken for me, but I tracked it down to rosdistro's egg-info/requires.txt also depending on distribute instead of setuptools. I'll build an update of python-rosdistro tonight with a similar fix to the one that you applied to bloom. Are you using rosdistro from the Fedora repositories? Or is it that you still have distribute installed from pip which quietly satisfies rosdistro's dependency as well? And for future reference, it's common practice to bump the dist tag and create a new changelog entry when making revisions to your package during the review. That way reviewers don't get confused as to i thought i already downloaded and built -1. It's not uncommon to be on -4 or -5 of a package by the time it gets accepted 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 1084865] Review Request: python-bloom - Bloom is a release automation tool for catkin packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084865 --- Comment #6 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com --- rosdistro updates have been submitted for f19+ with deps on setuptools instead of distribute. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079616] Review Request: perl-MooX - Using Moo and MooX:: packages the most lazy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079616 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-MooX-0.101-2.fc19 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-MooX-0.101-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1054933] Review Request: esteidcerts - Estonian ID card certificates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054933 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- esteidcerts-3.8.0.9128-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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 1078315] Review Request: python-pyramid-mako - Mako template bindings for the Pyramid web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078315 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pyramid-mako-1.0a2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982204] Review Request: Elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 Bug 982204 depends on bug 1058174, which changed state. Bug 1058174 Summary: Review Request: ghc-aeson-pretty - JSON pretty-printing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058174 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058174] Review Request: ghc-aeson-pretty - JSON pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058174 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-aeson-pretty-0.7.1-1.fc ||20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-04-08 20:57:36 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-aeson-pretty-0.7.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078946] Review Request: python-bugzilla2fedmsg - Consume BZ messages over STOMP and republish to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078946 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-bugzilla2fedmsg-0.1.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058174] Review Request: ghc-aeson-pretty - JSON pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058174 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-aeson-pretty-0.7.1-1.fc |ghc-aeson-pretty-0.7.1-1.fc |20 |19 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-aeson-pretty-0.7.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076260] Review Request: libykneomgr - Yubico YubiKey NEO Manager C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076260 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||libykneomgr-0.1.2-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-04-08 21:02:07 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libykneomgr-0.1.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079616] Review Request: perl-MooX - Using Moo and MooX:: packages the most lazy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079616 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-MooX-0.101-2.fc19 |perl-MooX-0.101-2.fc20 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-MooX-0.101-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084865] Review Request: python-bloom - Bloom is a release automation tool for catkin packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084865 --- Comment #7 from Scott K Logan log...@cottsay.net --- I must have still had some remnant of distribute installed. I'm glad we're working this fix into rosdistro as well. I'll be sure to bump releases from here on out...thanks for the heads-up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076260] Review Request: libykneomgr - Yubico YubiKey NEO Manager C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076260 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libykneomgr-0.1.2-1.fc19|libykneomgr-0.1.2-1.fc20 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libykneomgr-0.1.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070230] Review Request: python-django15 - A high-level Python Web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070230 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-django15-1.5.5-7.fc2 ||0 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-04-08 21:04:06 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django15-1.5.5-7.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084865] Review Request: python-bloom - Bloom is a release automation tool for catkin packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084865 Scott K Logan log...@cottsay.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Scott K Logan log...@cottsay.net --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-bloom Short Description: Bloom is a release automation tool for catkin packages Owners: cottsay rmattes Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1085612] New: Review Request: minetest-classic - Fork of Minetest, a multiplayer infinite-world block sandbox with survival mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085612 Bug ID: 1085612 Summary: Review Request: minetest-classic - Fork of Minetest, a multiplayer infinite-world block sandbox with survival mode Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mavj...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mavjs.fedorapeople.org/minetest-classic/minetest-classic.spec SRPM URL: http://mavjs.fedorapeople.org/minetest-classic/minetest-classic-1403.00-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Game of mining, crafting and building in the infinite world of cubic blocks. Features both single and networked multiplayer mode. A fork of minetest (http://www.minetest.net) Fedora Account System Username: mavjs This is my first package and I need a sponsor. Currently, I'm providing rpms for minetest-classic using copr: http://www.minetest-classic.com/download.html Successfully built rpm(s) can be found here: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mavjs/minetest-classic/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1085612] Review Request: minetest-classic - Fork of Minetest, a multiplayer infinite-world block sandbox with survival mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085612 Ye Myat Kaung mavj...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mavj...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982204] Review Request: Elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Actually Elm 0.10.0.2 requires binary = 0.6.4.0, ie ghc-7.8! So targeting 0.10.0.2 currently seems best at least until ghc-7.8 is in rawhide. -- 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 1069259] Review Request: ndoutils - Store Nagios configuration and event data in a database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069259 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069259] Review Request: ndoutils - Store Nagios configuration and event data in a database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069259 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Fails to build in current rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6720014 but built successfully for F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6720014 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069259] Review Request: ndoutils - Store Nagios configuration and event data in a database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069259 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Sorry bad paste: but built successfully for F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6720014 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6720060 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397
--- Comment #16 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
* Wed Apr 9 2014 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru - 2.0.0-3
- removed jdns binary from jdns package
- dropped reduntant dependencies
- use only %%{buildroot}
- merged jdns-bin with qjdns subpackage
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drizt/jdns-package/24ff9e1091f664b452f22d6ac1684c269ca4c90d/jdns.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/drizt/jdns-package/24ff9e1091f664b452f22d6ac1684c269ca4c90d/jdns-2.0.0-3.fc20.R.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 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 --- Comment #17 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #15) Re: Qt5 In my opinion, Qt5 support is only practical, if it's possible to install fully parallel-installable Qt4 and Qt5 versions without conflicts. What that means, is that the Qt5 version would need different library/soname, headers, etc... I suspect upstream does not support that (yet). So probably not something to consider now, but look forward to at some point in the future. So is there a guide or some manual how to all stuff should be named? I can add appropriate changes to upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067200] Review Request: os-collect-config - Collect and cache metadata running hooks on changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067200 Steve Baker sba...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sba...@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |os-collect-config - Collect |os-collect-config - Collect |and cache metadta running |and cache metadata running |hooks on changes|hooks on changes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
