[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
1. Summary suggestion:
C/C++ source files #include analyzer based on clang
2. %{_bindir}/fix_includes.py
Maybe you can rename it to %{_bindir}/fix_includes? I think this name is
shorter :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057911] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwinextras - Qt5 for Windows - QtWinExtras component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057911 Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dr...@land.ru --- Comment #2 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- I tried to rebuild for myself. mingw32-qt5-qtwinextras-5.2.1-1.fc20.R.noarch has no libQt5WinExtras.dll.a [taurus@lix qtwinextras-opensource-src-5.2.1]$ cat mingw32-qt5-qtwinextras.excludes %exclude /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/Qt5WinExtras.dll.debug %exclude /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5WinExtras.dll.a %exclude /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/qt5/qml/QtWinExtras/qml_winextras.dll.debug [taurus@lix qtwinextras-opensource-src-5.2.1]$ cat mingw64-qt5-qtwinextras.excludes %exclude /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/Qt5WinExtras.dll.debug %exclude /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5WinExtras.dll.a %exclude /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/qt5/qml/QtWinExtras/qml_winextras.dll.debug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057911] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwinextras - Qt5 for Windows - QtWinExtras component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057911
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru ---
Try this
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{mingw32_prefix} | grep -e .dll\$ | sed
s@^$RPM_BUILD_ROOT@%%exclude @ | sed s/.dll\$/.dll.debug/
mingw32-qt5-%{qt_module}.excludes
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{mingw64_prefix} | grep -e .dll\$ | sed
s@^$RPM_BUILD_ROOT@%%exclude @ | sed s/.dll\$/.dll.debug/
mingw64-qt5-%{qt_module}.excludes
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076186] Review Request: openstv - single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openstv Short Description: single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software Upstream URL: https://github.com/OpenTechStrategies/openstv Owners: amigadave Branches: f19 f20 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076186] Review Request: openstv - single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 --- Comment #8 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Hi Ankur, thanks for the review. I added a symlink for the license, and updated the srpm and spec file in place. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070702] Review Request: lmdb - memory-mapped key-value database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070702 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hho...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com --- Assigning myself as a reviewer, so we can move forward. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094194] Review Request: liblogging - An easy to use logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094194 Tomas Heinrich thein...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-05-19 04:03:24 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098950] New: Review Request: vinterm - Vintage-style terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098950 Bug ID: 1098950 Summary: Review Request: vinterm - Vintage-style terminal emulator 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/vinterm.spec SRPM URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/vinterm-0.5.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Vintage Terminal is a terminal emulator that simulates the looks of a 1980s monitor. Vintage Terminal has the following features: - Full terminal capabilities implemented; - Scaling (zoom) with the argument -s; - Window resize/maximize; - Full screen (CTRL + F11) and full screen with 80 columns (CTRL + SHIFT + F11); - UNICODE support (no unicode font yet) (new in 0.4.0); - Has a authentic old look based on a IBM 5151 monitor. 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 1065610] Review Request: mandelbulber - Advanced 3D fractal generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Is it OK for packager to add the license? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098700] Review Request: inkscape-table - Table support for inkscape
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098700 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: inkscape-table Short Description: Table support for inkscape Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/inkscape-tables/ Owners: lkundrak Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070406] Review Request: signon - Accounts framework for Linux and POSIX based platforms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070406 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dvra...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(dvra...@redhat.co ||m) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094323] Review Request: kf5-kcodecs - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 addon with string manipulation methods
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094323 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-19 05:05:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086448] Review Request: kf5-attica - KDE Frameworks Tier 1 Addon with implementation of the Open Collaboration Services API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086448 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-19 05:05:31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094320] Review Request: kf5-karchive - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 addon with archive functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094320 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-19 05:05:38 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094329] Review Request: kf5-kcoreaddons - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 addon with various classes on top of QtCore
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094329 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-19 05:05:53 -- 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 1065610] Review Request: mandelbulber - Advanced 3D fractal generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610 --- Comment #8 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Hi Christopher. Yes, it is absolutely fine for the packager to include the license, if they are sure which license is used. In this case, you know that the license is the Boost license, so including the license text as a separate Source, and including it in the package with %doc, is correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094331] Review Request: kf5-kdbusaddons - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 addon with various classes on top of QtDBus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094331 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-19 05:06:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098965] New: Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 Bug ID: 1098965 Summary: Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: adel.gadl...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://94.247.144.115/files/rpm/capstone.spec SRPM URL: http://94.247.144.115/files/rpm/capstone-2.1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: A lightweight multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework. Fedora Account System Username: drago01 Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6862558 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094325] Review Request: kf5-kconfig - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 addon with advanced configuration system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094325 --- Comment #3 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- 1) License should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT/X11 2) Too long description 3) Missing ldconfig call in postin/postun for subpackages 4) kf5-kconfig should be noarch - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-binary -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai |
|l.com) |
--- Comment #7 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
CeCILL, Unknown or generated. 54 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1000445-tralics/licensecheck.txt
--- license-tag is fine.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1097985] Rename Request: naver-nanum-fonts - Nanum family of Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097985
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
First as you said on IRC this change needs many places in Fedora to change to
this new package name. I will suggest to send email on fonts list and see if
any response we get. If people think we should skip the renaming then we can
skip it :)
Other thing the upstream archive is not released under any version number and
inside there are various font files with its own release versions. Looks like
new upstream is in continuation of development from its previous upstream. We
can pick snapshot based package naming.
Name: %{fontname}-fonts
Version:3.020
Release:0.1.20131007%{?dist}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070702] Review Request: lmdb - memory-mapped key-value database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070702
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #13 from Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- As already mentioned above, package name should correspond with the
project name, which is lmdb, not liblmdb.
- As mentioned in comment #9, syncing with Debian/OpenSUSE library
versioning seems like a good idea to me. It seems the other distros
use liblmdb.so.0.0.0, which is what we should use as well then.
- Binaries should be detached from the library file, since for proper library
dependency only the library is necessary and the binaries are not.
This may be also significant on multilib systems, in case there is some
non-ELF file in the /usr/bin in the future.
So I guess we should be prepared for that.
This can be solved by introducing lmdb-libs subpackage, that would include
only the library (and necessary doc -- license, ...)
- Generated documentation can introduce file conflicts on multilib systems,
which means 32bit and 64bit -devel packages could not be co-installable.
Therefore the generated doc may be moved to a separate package and made
noarch.
That would also solve the next issue:
- Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2181120 bytes in /usr/share
- The macro %{version} should be changed to %%{version} in the comment in the
spec file
- The following lines seem to be not necessary to me in the %install section,
since they only remove files from the build directory:
rm -f Doxyfile
rm -rf man # Doxygen generated manpages
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
ISC, Unknown or generated. 13 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/hhorak/tmp/lmdb/liblmdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
- However, as already mentioned above, imho package name should correspond with
the
project name, which is lmdb, not liblmdb.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
- However, generated documentation can introduce file conflicts on
multilib systems, which means 32bit and 64bit -devel packages could
not be co-installable. Therefore the generated doc may be moved to
a separate package and made noarch.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
- The macro %{version} should be changed to %%{version} in the comment.
- Issue with Source0 is justified
[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
[Bug 1070702] Review Request: lmdb - memory-mapped key-value database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070702 --- Comment #14 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de --- (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #13) This can be solved by introducing lmdb-libs subpackage, that would include only the library (and necessary doc -- license, ...) Maybe lmdb for binaries and liblmdb for libraries? That is like acl package is doing. That might also make above liblmdb folks happy? Just a suggestion. Personally I am also fine with lmdb-libs or similar :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065610] Review Request: mandelbulber - Advanced 3D fractal generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065610 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text said: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.. Later: However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either: Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. So, packager may include license separately only if upstream irresponsible or refuse such inclusion request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Fine. I will fix them ASAP. Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tralics Short Description: LaTeX to XML translator Upstream URL: http://www-sop.inria.fr/apics/tralics/ Owners: cicku Branches: f20 f19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804125 --- Comment #30 from Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com --- Works on Koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6862522 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096796] Review Request: mingw-SDL2 - MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096796 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096796] Review Request: mingw-SDL2 - MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096796 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-SDL2-2.0.3-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-SDL2-2.0.3-3.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 1096796] Review Request: mingw-SDL2 - MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096796 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-SDL2-2.0.3-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-SDL2-2.0.3-3.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 1094333] Review Request: kf5-kguiaddons - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 addon with various classes on top of QtGui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094333 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@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 1094332] Review Request: kf5-kglobalaccel - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 integration module for global shortcuts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094332 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- 1) License should be LGPLv2+ 2) Wrong version in %changelog These issues could be simply fixed during the import, otherwise the package is good, so can be 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 1099033] New: Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of serif OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099033 Bug ID: 1099033 Summary: Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of serif OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rel...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts//adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts//adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.014-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Source Serif Pro is a set of OpenType fonts to complement the Source Sans Pro family. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099033] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of serif OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099033 --- Comment #1 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6862846 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094333] Review Request: kf5-kguiaddons - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 addon with various classes on top of QtGui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094333 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- 1) License should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ 2) Wrong version in %changelog These issues could be simply fixed during the import, otherwise the package is good, so can be 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 1069243] Review Request: ccaudio2 - C++ class framework for telephonic audio applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069243 --- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- 1. BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ucommon) BuildRequires: ucommon-devel = 6.0.0 Well, you only need one of them. 2. I have a question, why did you split out -bin? Because I've seen many -util, -utils, -tool and -bin, currently no guideline cover the standard name of such package, so I'd like to hear your opinion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889546] Review Request: ovirt-guest-agent - oVirt Guest Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889546 Vinzenz Feenstra [evilissimo] vfeen...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Vinzenz Feenstra [evilissimo] vfeen...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ovirt-guest-agent New Branches: el7 Owners: evilissimo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 454208] Review Request: florence - Florence is an extensible scalable on-screen virtual keyboard for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454208 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 454208] Review Request: florence - Florence is an extensible scalable on-screen virtual keyboard for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454208 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860146] Review Request: vsqlite++ - A C++ Wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860146 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 860146] Review Request: vsqlite++ - A C++ Wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860146 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889546] Review Request: ovirt-guest-agent - oVirt Guest Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889546 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889546] Review Request: ovirt-guest-agent - oVirt Guest Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889546 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000445] Review Request: tralics - LaTeX to XML translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000445 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1000445] Review Request: tralics - LaTeX to XML translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000445 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076186] Review Request: openstv - single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057766] Review Request: clustal-omega - command line tool for multiple sequence alignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057766 --- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057766] Review Request: clustal-omega - command line tool for multiple sequence alignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057766 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076186] Review Request: openstv - single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088694] Review Request: octave-statistics - Additional statistics functions for Octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088694 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088694] Review Request: octave-statistics - Additional statistics functions for Octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088694 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088696] Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088696 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- WARNING: Ticket is not assigned to anyone. WARNING: Requested package name octave-ncarry doesn't match bug summary octave-ncarray Please correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088696] Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088696 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Appears to be unretired and simply needs devel and f20 taken ownership of in pkgdb. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098700] Review Request: inkscape-table - Table support for inkscape
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098700 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Already complete. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098700] Review Request: inkscape-table - Table support for inkscape
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098700 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097943] Review Request: vdr-vnsiserver5 - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI, protocol version 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097943 Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com --- I will review your package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096082] Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 --- Comment #1 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- SRPM updated at: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.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 1097943] Review Request: vdr-vnsiserver5 - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI, protocol version 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097943
--- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com ---
Github provides a convenient way to retrieve online a source tarball for a
given commit:
%global git_hash 031f69bd8844af38dac78f403c197bcb96c9a43a
%global short_git_hash %%(c=%%{git_hash}; echo ${c:0:7})
[...]
Source:
https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver/archive/%{short_git_hash}/%{name}-%{short_git_hash}.tar.gz
[...]
%prep
%setup -q -n vdr-plugin-vnsiserver-%{git_hash}
By the way, upstream has just released two days ago a new 1.1.0 release (see
https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver/commit/7d4aa813cc54431151e9120f2080f00251e9cf48).
Notice that no tag was created for this release on Github. You should ask
upstream to create a tag for further release, to make easier packaging and
updates tracking.
It looks like upstream also improved well the way the plugin is build and
deployed through Makefile. As a result, the %build and %install sections can be
simplified as below:
%build
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=-fPIC %optflags CXXFLAGS=-fPIC %{optflags}
%install
%make_install
install -dm 755 %{buildroot}%{vdr_configdir}/plugins/%{plugin_name}
install -Dpm 644 %{plugin_name}/*
%{buildroot}%{vdr_configdir}/plugins/%{plugin_name}/
I really wonder if it's worth naming the package vdr-vnsiserver5:
- the project name doesn't refer anymore to the protocol version (see
https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver/commit/6ff29b7149a1a522804c0cd1877f1d2b5148d4d2)
- upstream officialy published about the protocol stabilization, and the
renaming from vdr-vnsiserver5 to vdr-vnsiserver (see
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=189793).
As a result, you should rename the package to vdr-vnsiserver.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-19 09:04:34 --- Comment #9 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Build done in rawhide/epel7 Will push in stable fc20/epel6 with all the other apps for consistency. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098677] Review Request: med - Library to exchange meshed data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098677 --- Comment #8 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Can you reupload your SRPM? It looks like it's bad. I can download it but not install it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076186] Review Request: openstv - single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076186] Review Request: openstv - single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openstv-1.7-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstv-1.7-1.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 1076186] Review Request: openstv - single transferable vote and instant runoff voting software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openstv-1.7-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openstv-1.7-1.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 1088696] Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088696 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jama...@fc.up.pt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088694] Review Request: octave-statistics - Additional statistics functions for Octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088694 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jama...@fc.up.pt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920778] Review Request: python-MultipartPostHandler2 - A handler for urllib2 to enable multipart form uploading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920778 --- Comment #24 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com --- (In reply to Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda from comment #2) [1] http://pythonhosted.org/distribute/setuptools.html#dynamic-discovery-of- services-and-plugins now the link is : https://pythonhosted.org/setuptools/setuptools.html#dynamic-discovery-of-services-and-plugins May I join to committers of this package ? I'm going make the requests now -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096082] Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|plaut...@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 920778] Review Request: python-MultipartPostHandler2 - A handler for urllib2 to enable multipart form uploading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920778 --- Comment #25 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- I don't underestand, why do you want to join the committers? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 --- Comment #2 from Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com --- - directory /usr/share/crypto-policies is not owned by the package - it's build as arch specific, however it contains only configuration data and a shell script. Shouldn't this package be noarch? - rpmlint --- Checking: crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.x86_64.rpm crypto-policies-0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.src.rpm crypto-policies.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic - cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-gitf15621a ['0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL crypto-policies.x86_64: E: no-binary crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings crypto-policies.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic - cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.src: W: invalid-license LGPL crypto-policies.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Fri May 19 2014 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n...@redhat.com - 1-gitf15621a 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 5 warnings. - rpmlint (installed packages) # rpmlint crypto-policies crypto-policies.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic - cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-gitf15621a ['0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-1.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL crypto-policies.x86_64: E: no-binary crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 --- Comment #3 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Thanks, I've uploaded a -2 version with the changes above. I've not fixed the script-without-shebang warning as it is intentional (it's an include file, not a script by itself). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098677] Review Request: med - Library to exchange meshed data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098677 --- Comment #9 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Done, should work now. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920778] Review Request: python-MultipartPostHandler2 - A handler for urllib2 to enable multipart form uploading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920778 --- Comment #26 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com --- to update the package to 0.1.4 basically -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088696] Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088696 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: octave-ncarray Short Description: Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array Upstream URL: http://octave.sourceforge.net/ncarry Owners: orion Branches: 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 949038] Review Request: php-horde-horde - Horde Application Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949038 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-horde-5.1.6-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-horde-5.1.6-3.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 949038] Review Request: php-horde-horde - Horde Application Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949038 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-horde-5.1.6-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-horde-5.1.6-3.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 1026252] Review Request: kluppe - a live looping instrument
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026252
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
kluppe.desktop: warning: value Application;Audio;AudioVideo;X-Sequencers; for
key Categories in group Desktop Entry contains a deprecated value
Application
Please remove Application from your desktop file.
I think that Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit is not necessary. The binary
is linked to libjack.so.0()(64bit) which is provided by just that package:
rpm -q --whatprovides libjack.so.0()(64bit)
jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.9.5-2.fc19.x86_64
I would suggest to explicitly state the txt files instead of using a wildcard,
as there are only two. Same goes for CHANGES.log. Also consider to add the TODO
file.
Please submit your patches and the corrected desktop files, if you haven't
already. Leave according comments in the spec file! Same goes for the FSF
postal address issue. You may also suggest to put a license declaration inside
the files that are missing one now.
Remains from my former comment:
cp -rp src/frontend/kluppe/%{name}.png ... -- The r doesn't serve a purpose
there.
Assuming you can easily handle all these issues: =APPROVED=
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 53 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/1026252-kluppe/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
I also tested PPC.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used
[Bug 1087734] Review Request: php-horde-imp - A web based webmail system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087734 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-imp-6.1.7-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-imp-6.1.7-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087734] Review Request: php-horde-imp - A web based webmail system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087734 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-imp-6.1.7-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-imp-6.1.7-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-ingo-3.1.4-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-ingo-3.1.4-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-ingo-3.1.4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-ingo-3.1.4-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-nag-4.1.4-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-nag-4.1.4-3.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 1026252] Review Request: kluppe - a live looping instrument
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026252 --- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- I still don't fully understand why the final package needs the additional icon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-kronolith-4.1.5-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-kronolith-4.1.5-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-turba-4.1.4-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-turba-4.1.4-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-turba-4.1.4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-turba-4.1.4-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-nag-4.1.4-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-nag-4.1.4-3.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 1088696] Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088696 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088696] Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088696 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-horde-kronolith-4.1.5-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-horde-kronolith-4.1.5-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096082] Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 --- Comment #4 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- The updated SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/crypto-policies-0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.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 1065539] Review Request: subunit - C bindings for subunit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065539
Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2014-05-19 11:59:43
--- Comment #14 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #13)
BTW this loop looks very inefficient:
for filt in filters/*; do
sed 's,/usr/bin/env ,/usr/bin/,' $filt ${filt}.new
chmod 0755 ${filt}.new
touch -r $filt ${filt}.new
mv -f ${filt}.new $filt
done
Could it be replaced with:
sed -i 's,/usr/bin/env ,/usr/bin/,; q' filters/*
or
find filters/ -exec sed -i 's,/usr/bin/env ,/usr/bin/,; q' {} +
Neither of the latter 2 preserves timestamps or fixes the missing executable
bits on subunit-output. In any case, there are only 13 files that are
processed in this way. Even if it is inefficient, it is still only a minuscule
fraction of the total build time:
real0m0.135s
user0m0.011s
sys0m0.030s
Compared to the total number of minutes taken by a build, this just isn't worth
optimizing, in my opinion, especially when doing so leads to loss of
functionality (i.e., the timestamp and executable bit fixes).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099166] New: Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099166 Bug ID: 1099166 Summary: Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: martinbuenah...@openmailbox.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/screenfetch.git/tree/screenfetch.spec SRPM URL: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/screenfetch.git/tree/screenfetch-3.2.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: screenFetch is a Bash Screenshot Information Tool. This handy Bash script can be used to generate one of those nifty terminal theme information + ASCII distribution logos you see in everyone's screenshots nowadays. It will auto-detect your distribution and display an ASCII version of that distribution's logo and some valuable information to the right. There are options to specify no ascii art, colors, taking a screenshot upon displaying info, and even customizing the screenshot command! This script is very easy to add to and can easily be extended. Fedora Account System Username:zironid This is my first package, so I need an sponsor. (Note: Sponsor will recive a big Thank you!) Succseful Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6863548 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099166] Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099166 Martín Buenahora martinbuenah...@openmailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |20 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088694] Review Request: octave-statistics - Additional statistics functions for Octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088694 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-05-19 12:01:38 --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Checked in and built. Thanks all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098677] Review Request: med - Library to exchange meshed data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098677
--- Comment #10 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
1. The -Wl,--as-needed didn't seem to help and it's not excessive so you can
drop that if you want.
2. Change your BR for python to a versioned one, most likely python2-devel.
3. Based on the output of licensecheck the license should be LGPLv3+
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
-- should BR python2-devel
- License should be LGPLv3+ based on output of licensecheck.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v3 or later), GPL (v2 or
later), Unknown or generated. 446 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-
review/1098677-med/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 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:
[-]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]:
[Bug 1088696] Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088696 --- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Checked in and built, thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099166] Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099166 Alejandro_Perez alejandro.perez.tor...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alejandro.perez.torres@gmai ||l.com --- Comment #1 from Alejandro_Perez alejandro.perez.tor...@gmail.com --- Please set the SRPM URL to a proper download site, you can use your home on fedorapeople.org to do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
