[Bug 1010613] Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010613 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #15 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Joseph Marrero from comment #14) > ping? Still going to work on this or lost interest? 0.0 No. -- 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 1010613] Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010613 Daniel Pocock changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dan...@pocock.com | |.au)| --- Comment #16 from Daniel Pocock --- There has been discussion on the upstream mailing list about Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo packaging: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/concurrencykit The latest release 0.4.2 was uploaded to Debian but still had some minor issues, I'm waiting to see how 0.4.3 is. I don't personally have time to maintain this on Fedora but as far as I know it is still a requirement to have this package for the next release of Ganglia. -- 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 1096052] New: Review Request: - nodejs-i18n - lightweight translation module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096052 Bug ID: 1096052 Summary: Review Request: - nodejs-i18n - lightweight translation module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: apa...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-i18n.spec SRPM URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-i18n-0.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: lightweight translation module with dynamic json storage Fedora Account System Username:anishpatil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010613] Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010613
--- Comment #17 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Joseph Marrero from comment #14)
> ping? Still going to work on this or lost interest?
Basically, if my package failed to pass the tests, I won't push it to the
review.
In file included from ../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/latency.h:34:0,
from ck_cohort.c:7:
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h: In function 'main':
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:381:9: error: PIC register clobbered
by '%ebx' in 'asm'
__asm__ __volatile__("cpuid;"
^
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:387:9: error: PIC register clobbered
by '%ebx' in 'asm'
__asm__ __volatile__("xorl %%eax, %%eax;"
^
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:381:9: error: PIC register clobbered
by '%ebx' in 'asm'
__asm__ __volatile__("cpuid;"
^
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:387:9: error: PIC register clobbered
by '%ebx' in 'asm'
__asm__ __volatile__("xorl %%eax, %%eax;"
^
make[2]: *** [ck_cohort.LATENCY] Error 1
HmmYou need to #include and judge the cores first. I'm sorry I
dont have too much time to fix it.
--
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 1096072] New: Review Request: nodejs-sprintf - JavaScript sprintf implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096072 Bug ID: 1096072 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-sprintf - JavaScript sprintf implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: apa...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sprintf.spec SRPM URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sprintf-0.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-sprintf-0.1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username:anishpatil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096072] Review Request: nodejs-sprintf - JavaScript sprintf implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096072 anish changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1096052 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096052 [Bug 1096052] Review Request: - nodejs-i18n - lightweight translation module -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096052] Review Request: - nodejs-i18n - lightweight translation module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096052 anish changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1096072 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096072 [Bug 1096072] Review Request: nodejs-sprintf - JavaScript sprintf implementation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096082] New: Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 Bug ID: 1096082 Summary: Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nmavr...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140509gite52c9f6.fc20.src.rpm Description: This package provides update-crypto-policies, which is a tool that sets the policy applicable for the various cryptographic back-ends, such as SSL/TLS libraries. The policy set by the tool will be the default policy used by these back-ends unless the application user configures them otherwise. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy Fedora Account System Username: nmav -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096138] New: Review Request: asdcplib - AS-DCP file access library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096138 Bug ID: 1096138 Summary: Review Request: asdcplib - AS-DCP file access library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@cicku.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/asdcplib.spec SRPM URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/asdcplib-1.12.58-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: The asdcplib library is a set of objects that offer simplified access to files conforming to the sound and picture track file formats developed by the SMPTE Working Group DC28.20 (now TC 21DC) and the MXF Interop “Sound & Picture Track File” format. The following SMPTE standards (and their normative references) are supported: - 377M-2004 - 381M-2005 - 382M-2007 - 429-3-2006 - 429-4-2006 - 429-5-2008 - 429-6-2006 - 429-10-2008 asdcplib supports reading and writing MXF files containing sound (PCM), picture (JPEG 2000 or MPEG-2) and timed-text (XML) essence. Plaintext and ciphertext are both supported using OpenSSL for cryptographic support. An object-oriented API is provided along with a command-line program asdcp-test that provides access to most of the API. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msima...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek --- It seems like there is already version 3.2.1 available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msima...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek --- Latest upstream release is 0.1.2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010613] Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010613 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-09 06:44:30 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010613] Review Request: ck - Concurrency Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010613 --- Comment #18 from Joseph Marrero --- OK, just checking since it was silent for almost 2 months. Let me know when the package is ready to do the review. BTW. I will not be available until May 28 2014, so If ready before that I will start the review around that time. -- 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 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/disruptor.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/disruptor-3.2.1-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 3.2.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng --- 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 1092018] Review Request: rubygem-comp_tree - A simple framework for automatic parallelism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092018 --- Comment #1 from Lukas Bezdicka --- fails to build on F20 http://paste.fedoraproject.org/100419/32564139/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092018] Review Request: rubygem-comp_tree - A simple framework for automatic parallelism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092018 Lukas Bezdicka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|soc...@v3.sk|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022 Lukas Bezdicka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|soc...@v3.sk|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/lightcouch.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/lightcouch-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 0.1.2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076448] Review Request: darkstat - Network traffic analyzer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076448 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-05-09 07:22:53 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096184] New: Review Request nodejs-i18n-transform -i18n transforms to a json object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096184 Bug ID: 1096184 Summary: Review Request nodejs-i18n-transform -i18n transforms to a json object Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: apa...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-i18n-transform.spec SRPM URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-i18n-transform-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: i18n transforms to a json object Fedora Account System Username: anishpatil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Michal Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Michal Schmidt --- Thank you for the review, Christopher! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sockperf Short Description: network benchmarking utility for testing latency and throughput Owners: michich Branches: 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 1096188] New: Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 Bug ID: 1096188 Summary: Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bjoern.es...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: The NGram class extends the Python 'set' class with efficient fuzzy search for members by means of an N-gram similarity measure. It also has static methods to compare a pair of strings. The N-grams are character based not word-based, and the class does not implement a language model, merely searching for members by string similarity. Koji Builds: el5:no build ---> needs Python >= 2.5 el6:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831187 epel7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831189 F19:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831191 F20:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831193 Frh:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831195 Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues. rpmlint complains about a missing manpage. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ngram.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ngram-3.3.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079499] Review Request: sockperf - network benchmarking utility for testing latency and throughput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079499 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831145 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Fixed / updated some minor glitch in spec-file. Spec-file and SRPM were updated in-place. New Koji Builds: el5:no build ---> needs Python >= 2.5 el6:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831327 epel7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831329 F19:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831332 F20:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831335 Frh:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831339 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070549] Review Request: tintii - Selective colour, saturation and hue shift effects utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070549 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- tintii-2.8.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tintii-2.8.2-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070549] Review Request: tintii - Selective colour, saturation and hue shift effects utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070549 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- tintii-2.8.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tintii-2.8.2-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070549] Review Request: tintii - Selective colour, saturation and hue shift effects utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070549 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrisder...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chrisder...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096206] New: Review Request: python-click - A simple wrapper around optparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096206 Bug ID: 1096206 Summary: Review Request: python-click - A simple wrapper around optparse Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rku...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rkuska.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-click.spec SRPM URL: http://rkuska.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-click-0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: click is a Python package for creating beautiful command line interfaces in a composable way with as little amount of code as necessary. It's the "Command Line Interface Creation Kit". It's highly configurable but comes with good defaults out of the box. Fedora Account System Username: rkuska -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096206] Review Request: python-click - A simple wrapper around optparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096206 --- Comment #1 from Robert Kuska --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831394 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch ---
Review done, looks fine!
Greetings,
Christian
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* LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rpmbuild/1096188-python-ngram/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 6 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
ngram-doc , python3-ngram
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present an
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Many thanks for the quick review, Christian! :D # New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-ngram Short Description: Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams Owners: besser82 Branches: el6 epel7 f19 f20 InitialCC: ml-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985753] Review Request: dfuzzer - Fuzzer for processes connected to D-Bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985753 Matus Marhefka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mmarhefk@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #12 from Matus Marhefka --- Hi, sorry for long response, here it is for review: https://wis.fit.vutbr.cz/FIT/st/ftp.php/ftp/eva.fit.vutbr.cz/WWW/dfuzzer.spec https://wis.fit.vutbr.cz/FIT/st/ftp.php/ftp/eva.fit.vutbr.cz/WWW/dfuzzer-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985753] Review Request: dfuzzer - Fuzzer for processes connected to D-Bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985753 --- Comment #13 from Matus Marhefka --- Sorry bad links, here are the correct ones: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xmarhe00/dfuzzer.spec http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xmarhe00/dfuzzer-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096206] Review Request: python-click - A simple wrapper around optparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096206 Matej Stuchlik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mstuc...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mstuc...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Matej Stuchlik --- I'll take this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000445] Review Request: tralics - LaTeX to XML translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000445 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- SPEC URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/tralics.spec SRPM URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/tralics-2.15.1-3.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6831666 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1095878] Review Request: python-frozen-flask - freezes a Flask application into a set of static files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095878
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
I've had the opportunity of to mentor of Diego face to face, here in FISL
Brazil, and seems that all is ok here. so I will to do the offical review of
this package
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/echevemaster/1095878-python-frozen-
flask/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, Pre
[Bug 1096264] New: Review Request: perl-JSON-MaybeXS - Use Cpanel::JSON::XS with a fallback to JSON::XS and JSON::PP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096264 Bug ID: 1096264 Summary: Review Request: perl-JSON-MaybeXS - Use Cpanel::JSON::XS with a fallback to JSON::XS and JSON::PP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-JSON-MaybeXS/branches/fedora/perl-JSON-MaybeXS.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-JSON-MaybeXS/perl-JSON-MaybeXS-1.002002-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: This module first checks to see if either Cpanel::JSON::XS or JSON::XS is already loaded, in which case it uses that module. Otherwise it tries to load Cpanel::JSON::XS, then JSON::XS, then JSON::PP in order, and either uses the first module it finds or throws an error. It then exports the "encode_json" and "decode_json" functions from the loaded module, along with a "JSON" constant that returns the class name for calling "new" on. If you're writing fresh code rather than replacing JSON.pm usage, you might want to pass options as constructor args rather than calling mutators, so we provide our own "new" method that supports that. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc Note: this package takes the approach of adding a hard dependency on upstream's preferred back-end, Cpanel::JSON::XS, rather than using a virtual provides/requires arrangement so that any of the supported back-ends could be used. This is not only much simpler and does not involve modifications to the back-end packages, but it also makes for consistent results as we're always using the same, most-tested back-end. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-ngram-3.3.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ngram-3.3.0-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- 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 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-ngram-3.3.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ngram-3.3.0-1.fc19 -- 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 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-ngram-3.3.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ngram-3.3.0-1.fc20 -- 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 885317] Review Request: kdevelop-python - Python Plugin for KDevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885317 Giuseppe Marco Randazzo changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #894058||review+ Flags|| CC||gmranda...@gmail.com --- Comment #15 from Giuseppe Marco Randazzo --- Created attachment 894058 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=894058&action=edit Update to version 1.5.2 for fedora 20 I was updating the package to the 1.5.2 which is the o Hello, i think that this package is very usefull. I like to write code with kdevelop and i do not like to installa an other IDE to write code in python. So... I have updated the package to 1.5.2 which is the only one compatible with Fedora 20. The package 1.6.1 is not possible to install because the Fedora 20 PythonLib version is not supported. The question is... This package will be available on the official fedora repository or not? Thanks GMR -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034
Michael Simacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Michael Simacek ---
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:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/1091034-lightcouch/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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned depend
[Bug 885317] Review Request: kdevelop-python - Python Plugin for KDevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885317 --- Comment #16 from Rex Dieter --- Re: comment #15 > This package will be available on the official fedora repository or not? Including this package in fedora is blocking on the issue of the bundled copy of python. That either needs to be removed to use system python, or a request be made to allow an exception (see proposal in comment #14) As far as I'm aware, neither has happened yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032
Michael Simacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Michael Simacek ---
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:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 26 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/1091032-disruptor/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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned depend
[Bug 885317] Review Request: kdevelop-python - Python Plugin for KDevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885317 --- Comment #17 from Giuseppe Marco Randazzo --- Ok thanks Rex. So... in the package i was found in the README this... Python fork --- kdev-python currently contains a fork of Python 2.7.2 with some custom adjustments. The fork is contained in the python-src/ subdirectory. Only the parser of that fork is being built, and the language plugin links against the resulting library. You can currently NOT replace that library by the vanilla libpython.so library. I'm aware that this situation is very undesirable, and measures have been taken to get rid of the fork: With the release of Python 3.4, the fork can be removed. So we have to wait the update of python library in fedora to the version 3.4 to have a package linked with the system python. Marco -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lightcouch Short Description: CouchDB Java API Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: disruptor Short Description: Concurrent Programming Framework Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091144] Review Request: perl-Parse-DMIDecode - Interface to SMBIOS using dmidecode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091144
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@city-fan.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|p...@city-fan.org
--- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth ---
A few quick comments before I go through the review checklist:
The POD problem for EL-6 is
https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=52296; the patch
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Attachment/699959/360879/fix-pod-urls.patch attached
to that ticket fixes the issue and doesn't break other builds, so I think that
would be a better fix than skipping the test on EL-6.
Please add a spec comment about why setting %debug_package to %{nil} is desired
(I know, but not everybody would get it).
Use of macros for commands like %{__rm} is discouraged in the guidelines.
Also, be aware that Nicola (upstream) hasn't updated any of her CPAN packages
since January 2008, so if there's any bugs that need fixing, you're probably on
your own. I know this as current maintainer of perl-RRD-Simple...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094804] Review Request: pam_script - PAM module for executing scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094804 Jason Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2014-05-09 11:34:07 --- Comment #8 from Jason Taylor --- Discovered this package needs some more work. Will refine and resubmit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 885317] Review Request: kdevelop-python - Python Plugin for KDevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885317 --- Comment #18 from Paul Fee --- Python 3.4 is in rawhide, so kdev-python could be targetted for Fedora 21. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=9781 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091144] Review Request: perl-Parse-DMIDecode - Interface to SMBIOS using dmidecode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091144
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Paul Howarth ---
rpmlint
===
perl-Parse-DMIDecode.x86_64: E: no-binary
This is to be expected; the package is really noarch but has to be
arch-specific
because its dependency, dmidecode, is not available on all architectures.
Review Checks
=
- rpmlint OK
- package and spec file naming OK
- package meets guidelines
- license is ASL 2.0, OK for Fedora and matches upstream
- upstream provides license file and it's packaged as %doc
- spec file is legible and written in English
- source matches upstream, including timestamp
- package builds OK in mock for F-19 .. Rawhide and EPEL-6 .. EPEL-7 (i386 and
x86_64)
- package is "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64", with explanation included
- build dependencies somewhat over-specified - see below
- no locale data, libraries, devel files to concern ourselves with
- no bundled libraries
- package is not intended to be relocatable
- directory ownership and permissions OK
- no duplicate files
- macro usage is consistent
- code, not content
- no large docs to worry about
- docs don't affect runtime
- not a GUI app, no desktop file needed
- filenames are all ASCII
- no scriptlets or sub-packages
Nits
perl(Cwd) and perl(File::Spec) are only needed by Makefile.PL, which you don't
use, so there's no need to BuildRequire them.
perl(Config) is not needed if AUTOMATED_TESTING is set at build time, which it
is.
perl(constant) is only used in the example code, so is not needed for the
build.
Build.PL asks for Test::Deep but it's not actually used.
No blockers here. 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 1086790] Review Request: gnudos - A GNU library to help new users of the GNU system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086790 --- Comment #12 from Mohammed Isam --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #11) Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gnudos.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gnudos-1.1-4.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 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
--- Comment #43 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #41)
> Taking for review. Full review below. Main points:
>
> ** MUST Items: **
> [!]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
> Note:
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> -> gnulib ok, add this link to spec:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/174, see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Will fix.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> -> Require: hicolor-icon-theme
I used to do this but in discussion either on another review request or on the
devel mailing list it was determined that RPM can handle this so is overkill to
require it.
> [!]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations.
> Note: %_sourcedir/$RPM_SOURCE_DIR is used.
> See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPM_Source_Dir
> See also OCE.src:183: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
This is for copying all the icons to the right place, I'm using a bash for loop
which means grabbing them directly rather than using the macros... I'm open to
suggestions here.
> OCE-foundation.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
> /usr/lib64/libTKernel.so.8.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
> OCE-foundation.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
> /usr/lib64/libTKAdvTools.so.8.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
> -> See for instance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329912
Already reported upstream. Some fixed, other they think is OK due to specific
use cases.
https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/issues/490
> ** SHOULD Items: **
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
> -> Could install %SOURCEx files with -p
Will fix.
> [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in OCE-
> foundation , OCE-modeling , OCE-ocaf , OCE-visualization , OCE-draw ,
> OCE-devel
> -> Are automatic, but might be a good to make them explicit
Hmm... I was letting the sonames drive the dependencies, I would rather leave
it that way if that's OK.
> Also: OCE-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on OCE/OCE-libs/libOCE
There is no OCE base package so this is expected.
> OCE.src:303: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
A library was dropped that I had commented out instead of removing, now gone.
>
> ** Extra Items: **
> [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
> is
> arched.
> Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4249600 bytes in /usr/share
> -> Guess 4MB is okay
Yeah, I don't really want to create another subpackage if it can be avoided.
Thanks,
Richard
--
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 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #44 from Sandro Mani --- Concerning the RPM_SOURCE_ISSUE: since it greatly increases the spec legibility I'd say we can consider it an exception as noted in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPM_Source_Dir, so ok. -- 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 1094041] Review Request: python-inlinestyler - Inlines external CSS into HTML elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094041 Dan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai ||l.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 1094041] Review Request: python-inlinestyler - Inlines external CSS into HTML elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094041
--- Comment #6 from Dan Scott ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
* python_sitelib is still defined at the top of the SPEC; this should either
be python2_sitelib, or not defined at all if you're not targeting EPEL6
(per fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros)
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/dan/1094041-python-inlinestyler/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{build
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
--- Comment #45 from Sandro Mani ---
Concerning the base package requirements: I'm not sure how to interpret [1]
"When a subpackage requires the base package, it must do so using a fully
versioned arch-specific (for non-noarch packages) dependency
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"
The result of having the requires autogenerated is basically the same, except
that they are not fully versioned.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
--
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 1096206] Review Request: python-click - A simple wrapper around optparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096206 Matej Stuchlik changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] New: Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 Bug ID: 1096350 Summary: Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rb...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-pypng.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-pypng-0.0.16-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: PyPNG allows PNG image files to be read and written using pure Python. It's available from github.com https://github.com/drj11/pypng Documentation is kindly hosted by PyPI http://pythonhosted.org/pypng/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6832474 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@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 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
--- Comment #46 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #45)
> Concerning the base package requirements: I'm not sure how to interpret [1]
>
> "When a subpackage requires the base package, it must do so using a fully
> versioned arch-specific (for non-noarch packages) dependency
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"
>
> The result of having the requires autogenerated is basically the same,
> except that they are not fully versioned.
While it may be technically questionable, it seems overboard to replicate
something that RPM is already handling for you. To correct it I would have to
manually check the requires of the subpackages for ones that are not provided
within the package and then find what package provides them. Then I would have
to keep this updated for new releases.
The lack of versioned requires doesn't bother me since it's all coming from the
same source archive and upstream does a good job of bumping the soversion when
ABI incompatible changes are made.
--
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 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 --- Comment #47 from Sandro Mani --- OK, fine for me! -- 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 1095878] Review Request: python-frozen-flask - freezes a Flask application into a set of static files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095878 Diego Daguerre changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Diego Daguerre --- Thanks for welcolme and the support. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-frozen-flask Short Description: freezes a Flask application into a set of static files Owners: lunaticc0 echevemaster Branches: f20 f19 InitialCC: echevemaster -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[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 installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required
[Bug 1091036] Review Request: log4j2 - Apache Log4j 2 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091036 Bug 1091036 depends on bug 1091034, which changed state. Bug 1091034 Summary: Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091034] Review Request: lightcouch - CouchDB Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091034 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-09 14:16:33 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- built lightcouch-0.1.2-1.fc21 for rawhide Task Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6832515 Build Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=515902 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091032] Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-09 14:22:28 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- built disruptor-3.2.1-1.fc21 for rawhide Task Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6832537 Build Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=515901 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091036] Review Request: log4j2 - Apache Log4j 2 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091036 Bug 1091036 depends on bug 1091032, which changed state. Bug 1091032 Summary: Review Request: disruptor - Concurrent Programming Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091032 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pypng Short Description: Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder Owners: ralph 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 1095878] Review Request: python-frozen-flask - freezes a Flask application into a set of static files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095878 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1095878] Review Request: python-frozen-flask - freezes a Flask application into a set of static files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095878 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093407] Review Request: vdr-epg-daemon - A daemon to download EPG data from internet and manage it in a mysql database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093407 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- guayadeque-0.3.7-2.svn1893.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/guayadeque-0.3.7-2.svn1893.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 1095302] Review Request: puppetlabs-stdlib - Puppet Labs Standard Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095302 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- puppetlabs-stdlib-4.2.0-1.20140509gitf3be3b6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/puppetlabs-stdlib-4.2.0-1.20140509gitf3be3b6.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 1095302] Review Request: puppetlabs-stdlib - Puppet Labs Standard Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095302 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- puppetlabs-stdlib-4.2.0-1.20140509gitf3be3b6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/puppetlabs-stdlib-4.2.0-1.20140509gitf3be3b6.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 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-pypng-0.0.16-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pypng-0.0.16-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-pypng-0.0.16-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pypng-0.0.16-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096350] Review Request: python-pypng - Pure Python PNG image encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096350 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-pypng-0.0.16-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pypng-0.0.16-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957465] Review Request: minised - A smaller, cheaper, faster SED implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957465 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|minised-1.14-2.fc19 |minised-1.14-4.el6 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- minised-1.14-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1096188] Review Request: python-ngram - Set-based subclass providing fuzzy search based on N-grams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096188 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-ngram-3.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- 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 1091770] Review Request: ctlib - A fast generic C++ library for applied and computational topology
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091770 --- Comment #8 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) --- Alright i'll address this. Quick comments, The documentation is not around yet. I'm still writing it, and I plan to use Sphinx (which will make it much larger). I just wanted to put the subpackage there so I don't need to re-review later. Similar for examples. I'll post what license check said, but, since I wrote this software, and I am releasing it, I wrote in every single header GPLv2 (or at your discretion, a later version). So GPLv3+ seems perfectly reasonable. If you'd like I can make it GPLv2+ I'll take care of the rest soon. Thanks for adding your comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091770] Review Request: ctlib - A fast generic C++ library for applied and computational topology
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091770 --- Comment #9 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) --- Probably the spec file has not been updated yet, because the base package dependency is not arch-specific yet. I'm not sure what you mean here. What are you looking for this to say? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1095302] Review Request: puppetlabs-stdlib - Puppet Labs Standard Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095302 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- puppetlabs-stdlib-4.2.1-1.20140510git08b00d9.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/puppetlabs-stdlib-4.2.1-1.20140510git08b00d9.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 1096264] Review Request: perl-JSON-MaybeXS - Use Cpanel::JSON::XS with a fallback to JSON::XS and JSON::PP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096264 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dd...@cpan.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dd...@cpan.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from David Dick --- Taking 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
