[Bug 1100556] Review Request: ansible-shell - Interactive shell for Ansible with built-in tab completion for all the modules.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100556
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
Drop rm -rf %{buildroot}.
This package was not noarch built, however it uses %{python2_sitelib} in
%files. On 64 bits system there will be an error about the file not found.
And if this package is noarch, CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is redundant.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100556] New: Review Request: ansible-shell - Interactive shell for Ansible with built-in tab completion for all the modules.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100556 Bug ID: 1100556 Summary: Review Request: ansible-shell - Interactive shell for Ansible with built-in tab completion for all the modules. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: admil...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/ansible-shell.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/ansible-shell-0.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Interactive shell for Ansible with built-in tab completion for all the modules. Fedora Account System Username: maxamillion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125
--- Comment #21 from John Morris ---
This is one giant package, whew. Review follows.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
*** These are suspicious: Start_page.html and freecad.{qch,qhc}
Start_page.html might be for the initial GUI.
freecad.{qch,qhc} are SQLite databases.
--
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 47902720 bytes in 6 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 47912960 bytes in /usr/share
freecad-0.13-5.fc21.i686.rpm:47912960
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
*** This is the funny '/usr/share/doc/freecad/freecad.qch' file again,
47MB
--
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains
desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in freecad
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
*** (from fedora-review tool)
-
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No
copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or
later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (with incorrect FSF
address)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
"*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 261 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jman/tmp/freecad/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
*** This is confusing:
- Software's 'copying.lib' says LGPLv2+
- Specfile says GPLv3+ (the only GPLv3 according to
licensecheck.txt is bison artifacts, which contain exceptions)
- Otherwise, the most restrictive licenses found in
licensecheck.txt are GPLv2+ files; my guess is the specfile
should say GPLv2+.
[?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
*** This is a SHOULD item, in case a copy of the GPLv2+ license must
added by the package
-
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in freecad-
data , freecad-doc
*** Have %{name} = %{version}-%{release} but not %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}; is this an issue?
-
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
*** No justification for any patches except the last; the first two
are obviously unbundling patches; how about patches 2 & 3?
-
Rpmlint:
freecad.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/freecad/lib/SketcherGui.so
SketcherGui.so
freecad.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/freecad/lib/SketcherGui.so
Part::BRepOffsetAPI_MakePipeShellPy::add(_object*)
freecad.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/freecad/lib/Robot.so Robot.so
freecad.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/freecad/lib/Robot.so
Part::BRepOffsetAPI_MakePipeShellPy::add(_object*)
[...]
*** I don't understand these; are they an issue?
freecad.i686: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/freecad/Mod/PartDesign/Scripts/RadialCopy.py python
freecad.i686: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/freecad/Mod/PartDesign/Scripts/RadialCopy.py 0644L python
*** Because of initial '#!' line; should these be dealt with?
freecad-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
*** Bogus: this pkg is to put large, arch-independent files in a
'noarch' pkg; the docs are in the main package.
freecad.src:216: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
freecad.src:216: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
freecad.src:216: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
*** Change % to %%, or just remove?
Unresolved items
[?]: Package functions as described.
*** Reviewer has no rawhide install to test against; pkg deps not yet
in stable releases
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
*** Reviewer hasn't run scratch builds
= MUST it
[Bug 631874] Review Request: liboauth - OAuth library functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631874 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Package Change Request == Package Name: liboauth New Branches: epel7 Owners: salimma -- 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 217484] Review Request: rlwrap - Wrapper for GNU readline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=217484 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+ fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rlwrap New Branches: epel7 Owners: salimma -- 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 460615] Review Request: bti - Bash Twitter Idiocy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460615 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Package Change Request == Package Name: bti New Branches: epel7 Owners: salimma -- 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 1083344] Review Request: hub - A command-line wrapper for git with github shortcuts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083344 --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean --- Here's an updated release that hopefully addresses your comments. I couldn't actually get the tests to run. The Gemfile declares a dependency on a version of rake that's in advance of what we have in rawhide. I left the bits in the specfile, but just commented out for the future. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/hub.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/hub-1.12.0-4.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 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: log4j12 Short Description: Java logging package 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 1089425] Review Request: keepass - Password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089425
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng ---
shared-mime-info owns %{_datadir}/mime.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100477] Review Request: python-natsort - Python library that sorts lists using the "natural order" sort
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100477 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080583] Review Request: compat-qpid-cpp - Compatibility modules for Qpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080583 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #34 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Perfect! Everything resolved. $ rpm -qa compat-* | sort compat-qpid-cpp-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-client-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-client-devel-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-client-devel-docs-0.24-10.fc21.noarch compat-qpid-cpp-client-rdma-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-server-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-server-ha-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-server-rdma-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-server-store-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-cpp-server-xml-0.24-10.fc21.x86_64 compat-qpid-tools-0.24-10.fc21.noarch rpmlint shows this - compat-qpid-cpp.src:188: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-cpp-client-devel-docs compat-qpid-cpp.src:204: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-cpp-server compat-qpid-cpp.src:269: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-cpp-server-ha compat-qpid-cpp.src:304: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-cpp-client-rdma compat-qpid-cpp.src:326: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-cpp-server-rdma compat-qpid-cpp.src:348: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-cpp-server-xml compat-qpid-cpp.src:370: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-cpp-server-store compat-qpid-cpp.src:393: W: unversioned-explicit-provides qpid-tools Please fix versioning before building. 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 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 Robert Rati changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert Rati --- 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 1100477] Review Request: python-natsort - Python library that sorts lists using the "natural order" sort
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100477 --- Comment #1 from José Matos --- Required for nikola 7.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100477] New: Review Request: python-natsort - Python library that sorts lists using the "natural order" sort
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100477 Bug ID: 1100477 Summary: Review Request: python-natsort - Python library that sorts lists using the "natural order" sort Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jama...@fc.up.pt QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-natsort.spec SRPM URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-natsort-3.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: python-natsort provides "natural sorting". Under natural sorting, numeric sub-strings are compared numerically, and the other word characters are compared lexically. Example: unsorted: ['a2', 'a9', 'a1', 'a4', 'a10'] lexicographic sort: ['a1', 'a10', 'a2', 'a4', 'a9'] natural sort: ['a1', 'a2', 'a4', 'a9', 'a10'] Fedora Account System Username: jamatos -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100461] New: Review Request: rubygem-minitest-stub-const - Stub constants for the duration of a block in MiniTest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100461 Bug ID: 1100461 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-minitest-stub-const - Stub constants for the duration of a block in MiniTest Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vondr...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-minitest-stub-const.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-minitest-stub-const-0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Stub constants for the duration of a block in MiniTest. Like RSpec's stub_const, but boring and non-magical. Fedora Account System Username: vondruch I requested inclusion of license file here: https://github.com/adammck/minitest-stub-const/issues/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 1098097] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PBKDF2 - PBKDF2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098097 --- Comment #2 from David Dick --- Hi Petr, just a ping on this one? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089425] Review Request: keepass - Password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089425
--- Comment #9 from Peter Oliver ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7)
> How could this get approved?
This sounds like it might be intended to be an insult, aimed at the packager
and/or the reviewer. Please try to avoid discouraging contributions.
> 1. python -c 'import archmod.CHM;
> archmod.CHM.CHMDir("Docs").process_templates("Docs/Chm")'
>
> At least you need to use python macro %{__python2}.
>
> 2. %files -n %{name}-doc
>
> Why not use "%files doc" directly?
>
> 3. %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz
>
> You should list it as:
>
> %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
Fixed all these. Thanks for picking up on them.
> 4. %{_datadir}/mime
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
>
> Completely wrong, please add requires on hicolor-icon-theme.
Well that would have been my instinct until I read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function,
but, fancy that, hicolor-icon-theme contains only directories, not icons.
Thanks again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6877790 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Sorry!, done. Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-2.fc19.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 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 --- Comment #4 from Robert Rati --- SRPM doesn't exist. Please fix this and I can approve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-2.fc19.src.rpm - fix compat version Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6877601 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080583] Review Request: compat-qpid-cpp - Compatibility modules for Qpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080583
--- Comment #33 from Darryl L. Pierce ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #32)
> Hi! I noticed that. That's why I downloaded the rpms from koji directly
> (impatient :)) and tried to install the packages. Here is what I tried -
I'm going to do any more test builds and all in rawhide to avoid accidentally
affecting released versions of Fedora. Then, once this is all working, I'll
propagate those changes down to 20 and 19.
* I've updated qpid-cpp to provide qpid(client) and qpid(client-devel)
* I've updated qpid-qmf to require those only and not qpid-cpp-client{-devel}
I've tested and they definitely install with the virtual provides on my F21
system. All looks good.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6877336
Updated spec: http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/compat-qpid-cpp.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/rpms/compat-qpid-cpp-0.24-10.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 1100409] New: Review Request: libixion - a general purpose formula parser & interpreter library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100409 Bug ID: 1100409 Summary: Review Request: libixion - a general purpose formula parser & interpreter library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dtar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libixion.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libixion-0.7.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Ixion is a general purpose formula parser & interpreter that can calculate multiple named targets, or "cells". The goal of this project is to create a library for calculating the results of formula expressions stored in multiple named targets, or “cells”. The cells can be referenced from each other, and the library takes care of resolving their dependencies automatically upon calculation. The caller can run the calculation routine either in a single-threaded mode, or a multi-threaded mode. The library also supports re-calculations where the contents of one or more cells have been modified since the last calculation, and a partial calculation of only the affected cells need to be calculated. Supported features: - Each calculation session is defined in a plain text file, which is parsed and interpreted by the Ixion parser. - Fully threaded calculation. - Name resolution using A1-style references. - Support 2D cell references and named expressions. - Support range references. - Dependency tracking during both full calculation and partial re-calculation. - Inline strings. - Volatile functions. The framework for volatile functions is implemented. We just need to implement more functions. Fedora Account System Username: dtardon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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-vnsiserver - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097943 Dr. Tilmann Bubeck changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-05-22 14:45:08 --- Comment #10 from Dr. Tilmann Bubeck --- thanks for all the support and the review. The package has been successfully imported into rawhide, F20, and F19. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087855] Review Request: scite - SCIntilla based GTK2 text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087855 Bruce O. Benson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bben...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Bruce O. Benson --- Client site would like to see SciTE in EPEL if it can go that far. Let me know if a business case is needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Robert Rati from comment #1)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Doesn't work as a compat package. log4j:log4j:1.2.17 won't resolve to this
> jar. I suggest adding %{version} to the mvn_compat_version line in the
> spec. Additionally, is the 12 in the mvn_compat_version needed?
maybe, you should use (like for hsqldb1) log4j:log4j:12
now change
%mvn_file %mvn_file log4j:log4j %{name}
in
%mvn_file log4j:log4j log4j
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-1.fc19.src.rpm
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6877145
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 Robert Rati changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Robert Rati changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from Robert Rati ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
Issues:
===
- Doesn't work as a compat package. log4j:log4j:1.2.17 won't resolve to this
jar. I suggest adding %{version} to the mvn_compat_version line in the
spec. Additionally, is the 12 in the mvn_compat_version 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[!]: Package functions as described.
Resolution for log4j:log4j:1.2.17 won't work.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: 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.
Tests are run as part of the build
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires
[Bug 1048667] Review Request: python-docker-py - An API client for docker written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048667 Bug 1048667 depends on bug 1049424, which changed state. Bug 1049424 Summary: provide python3 subpackage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049424 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 857965] Update el6 monit to 5.3.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857965 Karl Johnson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karljohnson...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Karl Johnson --- Hello, It would be great to upgrade Monit >5.3.1, last upstream version being 5.8.1. Monit above 5.3.1 fix memory usage monitoring in OpenVZ VPS and supports mysql test for version 5.5. We use a lot Monit in OpenVZ CentOS 6 containers and this fix would be much appreciated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Honza Horak --- (In reply to Jan Staněk from comment #15) > Moved the doxygen generated documentation to separate -doc subpackage. I was > not able to find any guidelines about Requires: for this kind of package, so > right now it is standalone - it requires no other lmdb* package and it is > not required by any of them. Is that OK? I think it is. Only the files COPYRIGHT, CHANGES and LICENSE may not be installed then. So I'd rather add them also for the -doc subpackage. Otherwise it looks fine, so giving ACK, but, please, add the files to the -doc before commiting to git. 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 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 Robert Rati changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rr...@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 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1010003 (bigdata-review) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010003 [Bug 1010003] bigdata-sig review-tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100323] New: Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323 Bug ID: 1100323 Summary: Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Log4j is a tool to help the programmer output log statements to a variety of output targets. Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6875992 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
--- Comment #15 from Jan Staněk ---
Updated package:
Spec URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/lmdb/lmdb.spec
SRPM URL: http://jstanek.fedorapeople.org/lmdb/lmdb-0.9.11-1.fc20.src.rpm
> - As already mentioned above, package name should correspond with the
> project name, which is lmdb, not liblmdb.
Package renamed back to lmdb.
> - 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.
Went with that idea -- the full name (filename and soname flag) is now
liblmdb.so.0.0.0
> - 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, ...)
Created subpackage -libs, which now contains the shared library and the %doc
files from main package (COPYRIGHT, CHANGES and LICENSE). I figured that since
this subpackage does not need the main package, but main package is dependent
on it, the %doc files should be in the subpackage. This way they are allways
installed when the library is. However rpmlint does not likes that and issues a
warning about no documentation in the main package.
> - 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
Moved the doxygen generated documentation to separate -doc subpackage. I was
not able to find any guidelines about Requires: for this kind of package, so
right now it is standalone - it requires no other lmdb* package and it is not
required by any of them. Is that OK?
> - The macro %{version} should be changed to %%{version} in the comment in the
> spec file
Corrected.
> - 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
Moved the mentioned lines at the end of the %build section. Their role is to
silence the rpm warnings regarding unpackaged files.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096082] Review Request: crypto-policies - Crypto policies package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- The git portion looks OK, try #rel-eng in IRC or filing a trac with them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Jon Ciesla 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 1080583] Review Request: compat-qpid-cpp - Compatibility modules for Qpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080583 --- Comment #32 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Hi! I noticed that. That's why I downloaded the rpms from koji directly (impatient :)) and tried to install the packages. Here is what I tried - (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #30) > Cannot install -server-ha and -tools. It's qpid-qmf dependency that needs to > be worked out here, as I understand it. > > Here is what I tried > > # yum install compat-qpid-tools-0.24-9.fc19.noarch.rpm > compat-qpid-cpp-server-ha-0.24-9.fc19.x86_64.rpm > python-qpid-qmf-0.24-18.fc19.x86_64.rpm qpid-qmf-0.24-18.fc19.x86_64.rpm > qpid-cpp-client-0.24-9.fc19.x86_64.rpm > qpid-cpp-client-devel-0.24-9.fc19.x86_64.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 1080583] Review Request: compat-qpid-cpp - Compatibility modules for Qpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080583 --- Comment #31 from Darryl L. Pierce --- I built 0.24 yesterday for F19 but it doesn't seem to have made it into updates-testing yet. And I only see 0.20 in stable and nothing in updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084813] Review Request: gnubatch - Provides enhanced job control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084813
--- Comment #20 from Christopher Meng ---
1. /etc --> %{_sysconfdir}
2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd
3. BuildRequires: flex flex-devel, redundant "flex" if you BR flex-devel.
4. %description too long
5. /var --> %{_localstatedir}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember --- Looks like there's no bugzilla component for crypto-policies, I guess something must have gone wrong with the SCM request processing? Raising the fedora-cvs flag for this. Anyway, I noticed this only because I was trying to file a bug after seeing a bunch of rpm scriptlet errors installing the package: Installing : crypto-policies-0.9-3.20140520git81364e4.fc21.noarch 26/151 cat: /etc/crypto-policies/config: No such file or directory cat: /usr/share/crypto-policies/default-config: No such file or directory Couldn't read current profile warning: %post(crypto-policies-0.9-3.20140520git81364e4.fc21.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 Non-fatal POSTIN scriptlet failure in rpm package crypto-policies-0.9-3.20140520git81364e4.fc21.noarch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087812] Review Request: gpaw - A grid-based real-space PAW method DFT code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087812 --- Comment #24 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 1087812] Review Request: gpaw - A grid-based real-space PAW method DFT code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087812 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 1054394] Review Request: python-django-admin-bootstrapped - Bootstrap support for Django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054394 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge --- I'm sorry, I'm out of time for 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 1097943] Review Request: vdr-vnsiserver - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097943 --- 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 1097943] Review Request: vdr-vnsiserver - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097943 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 1096450] Review Request: nodejs-nan0 - Native Abstractions for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096450 --- 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 1096450] Review Request: nodejs-nan0 - Native Abstractions for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096450 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 1087812] Review Request: gpaw - A grid-based real-space PAW method DFT code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087812 marcindulak changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from marcindulak --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gpaw Short Description: A grid-based real-space PAW method DFT code Owners: marcindulak 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 1098820] Review Request: idfpml - Intel Decimal Floating-Point Math Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098820
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Version:20U1
The documentation in the tarball says "Version 2.0 Update 1" from Aug 2011. If
Fedora's post-release versioning scheme were used, %version could really become
"2.0".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
If the next release will become "2.1", one can only hope that they will stick
to their versioning scheme and call it "21", since "20U1 > 2.1" already.
> %package devel
> Requires: idfpml = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> # Create pkgconfig files for all library variants
> mkdir pkgconfig
> cd pkgconfig
> for ubf in 0 1
> …
>cat …
With all due respect, but this is insane. You are adding to the API here.
Typically, developers eventually will start supporting such pkgconfig files
under the assumption that those are provided by upstream. As long as the files
are specific to Fedora, that results in incompatibilities. Adding basic
non-versioned pkgconfig files is okay if those will be merged upstream. Adding
lots of idfpml$cbr$gr$gf$ubfc.pc files is too much IMO.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
>
> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
That's a no-op so far, because the shared lib is not installed in runtime
linker's search path:
> %files
> …
> %{_libdir}/idfpml/libbid*.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
[Bug 1077794] Review Request: copr-frontend - Frontend for Copr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077794 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 1077794] Review Request: copr-frontend - Frontend for Copr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077794 --- Comment #8 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 857865] Review Request: emacs-rpm-spec-mode - Major GNU Emacs mode for editing RPM spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857865 --- Comment #11 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 857865] Review Request: emacs-rpm-spec-mode - Major GNU Emacs mode for editing RPM spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857865 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 1062542] Review Request: libdatrie - Implementation of Double-Array structure for representing trie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062542 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- Hi, I hacked and finished: SPEC URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/libdatrie.spec SRPM URL: http://misc.cicku.me/fedora/libdatrie-0.2.8-3.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100199] New: Review Request: drupal7-google_analytics - Adds the Google Analytics web statistics tracking system to your website
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100199 Bug ID: 1100199 Summary: Review Request: drupal7-google_analytics - Adds the Google Analytics web statistics tracking system to your website Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter.bo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal7-google_analytics.spec SRPM URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal7-google_analytics-1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Adds the Google Analytics web statistics tracking system to your website. Fedora Account System Username: asrob -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084813] Review Request: gnubatch - Provides enhanced job control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084813 --- Comment #19 from Jon Kent --- Hi, Just a bump to get the status of this package. Thanks, Jon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059659] Review Request: python-aniso8601 - library for parsing dates in ISO8601 format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059659 Jan Sedlák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-05-22 04:34:57 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061732] Review Request: python-flask-restful - RESTful library for Flask
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061732 Bug 1061732 depends on bug 1059659, which changed state. Bug 1059659 Summary: Review Request: python-aniso8601 - library for parsing dates in ISO8601 format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059659 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1095662] Review Request: perl-Sys-Detect-Virtualization - Detect if a UNIX system is running as a virtual machine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095662 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sys-Detect-Virtualization-0.106-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Sys-Detect-Virtualization-0.106-1.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 1095662] Review Request: perl-Sys-Detect-Virtualization - Detect if a UNIX system is running as a virtual machine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095662 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 1077794] Review Request: copr-frontend - Frontend for Copr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077794 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchý --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: copr-frontend Short Description: Frontend for Copr Owners: msuchy Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077794] Review Request: copr-frontend - Frontend for Copr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077794 --- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý --- 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 1096450] Review Request: nodejs-nan0 - Native Abstractions for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096450 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-nan0 Short Description: Native Abstractions for Node.js Upstream URL: http://github.com/rvagg/nan Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096450] Review Request: nodejs-nan0 - Native Abstractions for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096450 --- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen --- Thanks for the review Tom! And yes, I'll be fixing the nodejs-nan package simultaneously. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Jan Kaluža changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. ||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 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 Jan Kaluža changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #9 from Jan Kaluža --- (In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #8) > Appears to be unretired and simply needs devel and f20 taken ownership of in > pkgdb. I've tried to build the package in rawhide, but the build failed with following error: "BuildError: package libeio is blocked for tag f21" http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6873963 I think it's not in consistent state currently, could you please check 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 1071163] Review Request: moarvm - Short for "Metamodel On A Runtime", MoarVM is a virtual machine as a backend for NQP and then Rakudo Perl 6 at the top.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071163 --- Comment #17 from Gerd Pokorra --- If I understand it corret, then there are two issues: 1. unversioned shared library files in base package 2. uthash is bundled unversioned shared library file in base package: MoarVM do not provide a versioned shared library. The unversioned shared library is needed to link NQP against it and to run Rakudo programs. I think this is a case to put the unversioned .so file in the base package. But I do not care about it. If you want I will place 'libmoar.so' in the -devel package. I do not hear from moarvm developers any consideration to provide a versioned shared library. uthash is bundled: MoarVM builds with the header file 3rdparty/uthash.h. On a Fedora 20 I stalled the rpm 'uthash', but MoarVM do not build with the header file from this package. I get the error: 'hash_handle' undeclared I must admit that I do not find a solution for that build problem. Any help is welcome. So would you make an exception and accept that this header files is bundled. Indeed the Fedora Packaging Guidelines only say not to bundle shared libraries. It should not to be a problem to bundle a header file that has a huge amount of different lines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 459125] Review Request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #20 from John Morris --- On 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
