[Bug 1103034] New: Review Request: python-django-stopforumspam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103034 Bug ID: 1103034 Summary: Review Request: python-django-stopforumspam Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-django-stopforumspam/python-django-stopforumspam.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-django-stopforumspam/python-django-stopforumspam-1.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tired of comment spam, form spam and dumb crawlers? A django application that provides middleware for blocking IPs listed in stopforumspam.com's database. A simple management command is provided for updating the database: manage.py sfsupdate [--force] Using this command, all IPs are stored in Django models. Using django-admin, it's possible to add your own extra IP addresses on a permanent database. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha Additional information: [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ !rpmlint rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware - middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware - middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US com's - con's, om's, come's python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sfsupdate - update python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware - middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware - middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US com's - con's, om's, come's python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py - pt, p, y python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sfsupdate - update 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103034] Review Request: python-django-stopforumspam - Django middleware for blocking IPs listed in stopforumspam.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103034
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||panem...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|python-django-stopforumspam |python-django-stopforumspam
||- Django middleware for
||blocking IPs listed in
||stopforumspam.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Review:
+ Package builds successful in mock f21
+ rpmlint on generated rpms gave
python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware
- middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
middleware - middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
com's - con's, om's, come's
python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py
- pt, p, y
python-django-stopforumspam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
sfsupdate - update
python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware -
middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
middleware - middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US com's
- con's, om's, come's
python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -
pt, p, y
python-django-stopforumspam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
sfsupdate - update
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
== no issues here
+ Source verified with usptream tarball as (sha256sum)
srpm tarball: 8b329b80d30cd83b97a6e8049fb0f51206215d5ca5255ff3ebe4bd2174717813
upstream tarball :
8b329b80d30cd83b97a6e8049fb0f51206215d5ca5255ff3ebe4bd2174717813
+ License is BSD as per given on upstream URL
Suggestions:
1) Decide if you need this package in EPEL or not otherwise all the cleanup
guidelines should be followed like
a) no need of removal of buildroot in %install
b) python2_site* macros at top of spec file are not needed
2) Use http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros in %files
change %{python_sitelib} to %{python2_sitelib}
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 --- Comment #19 from Guruswamy Basavaiah guru2...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c.spec SRPMS URL: http://www.ip2location.com/rpm/ip2location-c-6.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Following comments are fixed. 1) DB is placed in separate rpm. 2) Binary DB is converted from CVS file. No binary DB in the source tar ball. 3) Added make check to spec file. (Some issue with amd arch. I am checking it.) 4) Handled PPC compilation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1102858] Review Request: python-repoze-sphinx-autointerface - Auto-generate Sphinx API docs from Zope interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102858
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 900707
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=900707action=edit
fix and improve spec-file
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1102858-python-
repoze-sphinx-autointerface/licensecheck.txt
--- It might be nice to ask upstream for adding copyright / license
headers atop the source-files
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
--- owned by python3 on rawhide
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
--- owned by python3 on rawhide
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/repoze(python-repoze-what-plugins-sql, python-repoze-what,
python-repoze-who-friendlyform, python-repoze-who-plugins-sa, python-
repoze-who-testutil, python-repoze-what-pylons, python-repoze-tm2)
--- multiple ownership seems legit here
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
--- package is noarch
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 8 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
[Bug 1102858] Review Request: python-repoze-sphinx-autointerface - Auto-generate Sphinx API docs from Zope interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102858 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-repoze-sphinx-autoin ||terface 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 1102950] Review Request: python-persistent - Translucent persistent python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102950 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Alias||python-persistent 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 1103034] Review Request: python-django-stopforumspam - Django middleware for blocking IPs listed in stopforumspam.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103034 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Hi Paragn, Thank you for the quick review. I'm only going to push to Fedora at the moment, but I expect the package to be used for Ask Fedora sometime in the future. We'll request more branches if needed. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103034] Review Request: python-django-stopforumspam - Django middleware for blocking IPs listed in stopforumspam.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103034 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-stopforumspam Short Description: Django middleware for blocking IPs listed in stopforumspam Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/stopforumspam/ Owners: ankursinha Branches: 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 1103123] New: Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 Bug ID: 1103123 Summary: Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dd...@cpan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP.spec SRPM URL: http://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP-0.043-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent Fedora Account System Username: ddick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 --- Comment #1 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- koji build at rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6911082 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1102795] Review Request: libbtbb - A Bluetooth baseband decoding library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102795
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@der-flo.net
--- Comment #2 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
This is an *INFORMAL* package-review.
Due to some issues I wouldn't APPROVE so far.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
= 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: 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
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
--- doc-section is empty for the package and it's subpackage
[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.
--- package doesn't build properly. For more information see the koji-build
[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.
--- These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
[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.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
--- Package fails to build on all required archs
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6910896
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- package doesn't build properly. For more information see the koji-build
[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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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.
--- There is no separated file
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]:
[Bug 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-text-wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 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 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-text-wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.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 1102795] Review Request: libbtbb - A Bluetooth baseband decoding library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102795
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libbtbb-2014.02.R2-1.fc21.x86_64/usr/bin/btaptap
--- This file is part of the Python-wrapper around libbtbb…
Build fails, because CMAKE cannot find the Python-Interpreter: `-- Could NOT
find PythonInterp (missing: PYTHON_EXECUTABLE)`
--- Please add BR: python2-devel and if that isn't enough, append
'-DPYTHON_EXECUTABLE=%{__python2}' to the %%cmake-macro.
I'll try another run after you fixed this up…
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-text-wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.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 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-text-wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-text-wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-text-wiki-1.2.1-3.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 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-text-wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 Remi Collet rcol...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED CC||rcol...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-30 07:11:26 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087769] Review Request: php-horde-wicked - Wiki application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087769 Bug 1087769 depends on bug 1098625, which changed state. Bug 1098625 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-text-wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|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 1098754] Review Request: python-brian - A simulator for spiking neural networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098754 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Looks like there are lots of other findings inside this one… I'll take this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Good, no issues whatsoever :) Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 David Dick dd...@cpan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- That was fast :) Thanks Petr New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP Short Description: Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent Owners: ddick Branches: f20 epel7 InitialCC: perl-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 1103034] Review Request: python-django-stopforumspam - Django middleware for blocking IPs listed in stopforumspam.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103034 --- Comment #4 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 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 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 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 --- Comment #4 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 1103034] Review Request: python-django-stopforumspam - Django middleware for blocking IPs listed in stopforumspam.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103034 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 885317] Review Request: kdevelop-python - Python Plugin for KDevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885317 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #894058|review+ | Flags|| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #4 from José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt --- 1) I have replaced __python by __python2, thanks for the note. I think that it is overkill to provide both binaries. What would it be the purpose if they are functionally identical? My intent is to have the default python version to provide the binary. 2) fixed the typo in the python3-natsort %file section, my fault. A new iteration is available: Spec URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-natsort.spec SRPM URL: http://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-natsort-3.2.0-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064352] Review Request: rubygem-deep_merge - Merges deep hashes in ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064352 --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Just noticed that PL call this package rubygem-deep-merge rather than deep_merge. The latter is correct in the Fedora guidelines sense so we stick with that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 979166] Review Request: tora - Toolkit for Oracle, MySQL and PostreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979166 --- Comment #14 from ibre5041 ibre5...@ibrezina.net --- I have bad news. I found some memory leak in antlr3cpp and did fix it. At this moment mine patch waits in github's pull request queue. But I do not want to use un-patched version of antlr3cpp in Tora. -- 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 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
item 8 was fixed incorrectly. -libs scriptlet should be ldconfig *only* the
rest of the stuff left in the main pkg scriptlet. Do this:
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%post
update-desktop-database /dev/null || :
update-mime-database /usr/share/mime /dev/null || :
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null || :
%postun
update-desktop-database /dev/null || :
update-mime-database /usr/share/mime /dev/null || :
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null
gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null || :
fi
%posttrans
gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null || :
item 9 is not completely fixed, both -data and -libs still use %{_isa} in dep
on main package, which we want to avoid. In short, switch:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
to
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103226] New: Review Request: antlr32 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103226 Bug ID: 1103226 Summary: Review Request: antlr32 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mat.bo...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/antlr32.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/antlr32-3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: ANother Tool for Language Recognition, is a grammar parser generator. This package is compatibility package containing an older version of in order to support jython. No other packages should declare a dependency on this one. Fedora Account System Username: mbooth -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103226] Review Request: antlr32 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103226 --- Comment #1 from Mat Booth mat.bo...@redhat.com --- Here is a rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6911674 This package bootstraps itself using a previous build. Once built for rawhide, I will bump the release number and rebuild it with the bootstrap flag disabled to generate a fully self-hosted version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103226] Review Request: antlr32 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103226 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pmack...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pmack...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 --- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- just noticed a typo in my comment about item 8, theres an extra - in there. use: %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103226] Review Request: antlr32 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103226 Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1064352] Review Request: rubygem-deep_merge - Merges deep hashes in ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064352 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-deep_merge/rubygem-deep_merge-1.0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm is a new package but it's still not building on rawhide. I had to backport the minitest5 patch to this version but still something is wrong. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #14)
item 8 was fixed incorrectly. -libs scriptlet should be ldconfig *only* the
rest of the stuff left in the main pkg scriptlet. Do this:
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%post
update-desktop-database /dev/null || :
update-mime-database /usr/share/mime /dev/null || :
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null || :
%postun
update-desktop-database /dev/null || :
update-mime-database /usr/share/mime /dev/null || :
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null
gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null || :
fi
%posttrans
gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor /dev/null || :
item 9 is not completely fixed, both -data and -libs still use %{_isa} in
dep on main package, which we want to avoid. In short, switch:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
to
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Done.
I left same release number.
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-5.20140211svn4638.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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #10 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
spec-File was updated to latest version
Due to the changes the URLs changed, too
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/florianl/ratools-spec/master/ratools.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.der-flo.net/ratools-0.5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
koij-build F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6912215
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.
[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.
[-]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[?]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
--- no such a file needed at the moment
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #11 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- I think noreplace is not needed for bash completion file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
-data still has:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
should be:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
-devel has:
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
should be:
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I'm curious now, if there's a circular dependency between the main pkg
(Requires: %{name}-data) and -data (Requires: %{name}), why even make a -data
subpkg?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #12 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:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1100899-ratools/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.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
--- please add a comment with some justification about this.
Information supplied in Comment #6 might be useful…
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899#c6
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- issues are present.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[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.
--- see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6912545
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor,
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #17)
-data still has:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
should be:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
-devel has:
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
should be:
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I'm curious now, if there's a circular dependency between the main pkg
(Requires: %{name}-data) and -data (Requires: %{name}), why even make a
-data subpkg?
Initially, I prefered to split all files both to put them in order and to
organise them in the better manner; even if they may be packaged in a single
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 979166] Review Request: tora - Toolkit for Oracle, MySQL and PostreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979166 --- Comment #15 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Bad news better than nothing. Could you please provide link on pull-request to track it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887821] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bonding - Nagios plugin to monitor Linux bonding interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887821 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nagios-plugins-bonding-1.4-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887821] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bonding - Nagios plugin to monitor Linux bonding interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887821 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nagios-plugins-bonding-1.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1088882] Review Request: python-humanize - Turns dates in to human readable format, e.g '3 minutes ago'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=102 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-humanize-0.5-4.fc20 |python-humanize-0.5-4.el6 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-humanize-0.5-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #19 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Briefly:
main rpm
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-data = %{version}-%{release}
-libs rpm
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
-devel rpm
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
-data rpm
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Is it okay?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060989] Review Request: ghc-io-streams - Simple, composable, easy-to-use stream I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060989
Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com ---
There is a new minor version out again, but I will APPROVE this anyway and you
can update on import.
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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, 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
[Bug 1076463] Review Request: playitagainsam - Record and replay interactive terminal sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076463 --- Comment #9 from Clint Savage her...@gmail.com --- I've updated the spec and srpm with these changes. Thanks, herlo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226327] Merge Review: pvm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226327 Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #1 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi --- The package hasn't gone through a merge review, and as pointed out on the fedora-devel list there are some glaring problems with the current spec file, see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-May/199502.html Reopening. Please modernize the spec file to conform to the current Packaging Guidelines. -- 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 1089494] Review Request: nodejs-weak-map - A WeakMap shim for Node.js and browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-weak-map-1.0.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-weak-map-1.0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
nodejs-weak-map.noarch: W: spelling-error
[Bug 1089494] Review Request: nodejs-weak-map - A WeakMap shim for Node.js and browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494 --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Needs updating to the 1.0.5 release but other than that I think this is good to go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
No. in short, you want all references to the main pkg to *not* use %{_isa} and
any reference to -libs or -data to use %{_isa}
These 2 need to be:
main rpm
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-data%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
-libs rpm
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #21 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #20)
No. in short, you want all references to the main pkg to *not* use %{_isa}
and any reference to -libs or -data to use %{_isa}
-libs rpm
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
-libs should not consider also the architecture?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
Correct, dependencies should not consider architecture (ie, and use %{_isa})
for packages that are not (or that you don't want to be ) multilib'd. In this
case, we do not want the main package to be multilib'd.
Otherwise, there is no point in making a -libs subpkg at 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 229417] Review Request: python-qpid - qpid's python implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229417 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-qpid New Branches: epel7 Owners: mcpierce -- 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 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 --- Comment #23 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Sorry for the confusion. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-5.20140211svn4638.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 1103355] New: Review Request: drupal7-entityreference - Provides a field type that can reference arbitrary entities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103355 Bug ID: 1103355 Summary: Review Request: drupal7-entityreference - Provides a field type that can reference arbitrary entities 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-entityreference.spec SRPM URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal7-entityreference-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Provides a field type that can reference arbitrary entities. Fedora Account System Username: asrob koji url: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6913232 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint drupal7-entityreference.spec ~/Downloads/drupal7-entityreference-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064352] Review Request: rubygem-deep_merge - Merges deep hashes in ruby.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064352 --- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- The issue is that testrb invokes the test library that comes from stdlib. testrb has a couple of weird gotchas like this. (Another problem I've found is that it won't always exit with the correct exit code.) You can remove testrb from %check and replace it with a simple ruby invocation, like so: ruby -Ilib test/test_deep_merge.rb testrb is going to be removed in the next version of Ruby (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2014-May/001585.html) so it's a good idea to remove 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 1103226] Review Request: antlr32 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103226
--- Comment #2 from Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com ---
MUST:
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/antlr32
SHOULD:
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
It would be nice to have a link to the JIRA where Java 8 patch originated.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Test failures noted at %mvn_build -f with provided comment.
Will approve once dir ownership corrected.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/pmackinn/rpmbuild/1103226-antlr32/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause), Unknown or generated. 13 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/pmackinn/rpmbuild/1103226-antlr32/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/antlr32
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[X]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages
[Bug 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 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 1103123] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP - Client/server UDP handles for AnyEvent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103123 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP-0.043-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP-0.043-1.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 887821] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bonding - Nagios plugin to monitor Linux bonding interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887821 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nagios-plugins-bonding-1.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089500] Review Request: openlibm - High quality system independent, open source libm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089500 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||openlibm-0.3-6.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-30 19:50:48 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openlibm-0.3-6.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1089500, which changed state. Bug 1089500 Summary: Review Request: openlibm - High quality system independent, open source libm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089500 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062901] Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901 Bug 1062901 depends on bug 1089500, which changed state. Bug 1089500 Summary: Review Request: openlibm - High quality system independent, open source libm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089500 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089500] Review Request: openlibm - High quality system independent, open source libm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089500 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|openlibm-0.3-6.fc19 |openlibm-0.3-6.fc20 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- openlibm-0.3-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887821] Review Request: nagios-plugins-bonding - Nagios plugin to monitor Linux bonding interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887821 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nagios-plugins-bonding-1.4-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096206] Review Request: python-click - A simple wrapper around optparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096206 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-click-1.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004544] Package Review: grub2-icons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004544 Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(erat.simon@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #19 from Simon A. Erat erat.si...@gmail.com --- Had to replace my computer after hardware failure, and still trying to get 'my system' work as it used to. I hope to continue in about a month. Sorry for delays. -- 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 1100901] Review Request: rpm-ostree-toolbox - Extra tools for rpm-ostree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100901 Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-30 21:13:14 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
