[Bug 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Ready for prime time now. :-) Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle-1.10.19-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- All ready to go. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery-2.1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078371] Review Request: js-jquery1 - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library - for legacy browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078371 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Ready for review now. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery1.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery1-1.11.1-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 --- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- I've now fixed an annoying bug in grunt and can drop the hack I added in %prep to make it build. This now requires the most recent nodejs-grunt to build. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery-2.1.1-2.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 1078371] Review Request: js-jquery1 - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library - for legacy browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078371 --- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- I've now fixed an annoying bug in grunt and can drop the hack I added in %prep to make it build. This now requires the most recent nodejs-grunt to build. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery1.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery1-1.11.1-2.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 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 --- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- I've now fixed an annoying bug in grunt and can drop the hack I added in %prep to make it build. This now requires the most recent nodejs-grunt to build. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle-1.10.19-2.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 1103414] New: Review Request: js-jquery-migrate - APIs and features removed from jQuery core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103414 Bug ID: 1103414 Summary: Review Request: js-jquery-migrate - APIs and features removed from jQuery core Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tchollingswo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery-migrate.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-jquery-migrate-1.2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm FAS: patches Description: This plugin can be used to detect and restore APIs or features that have been deprecated in jQuery and removed as of version 1.9. The plugin can be included with versions of jQuery as old as 1.6.4 to identify potential upgrade issues via its JQMIGRATE console warnings. However, the plugin is only required for version 1.9.0 or higher to restore deprecated and removed functionality. Additionally, this package automatically maintains a copy of jQuery and jQuery Migrate combined into a single file to permit an easier transition to newer versions of jQuery. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078371] Review Request: js-jquery1 - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library - for legacy browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078371 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1103414 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103414 [Bug 1103414] Review Request: js-jquery-migrate - APIs and features removed from jQuery core -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103414] Review Request: js-jquery-migrate - APIs and features removed from jQuery core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103414 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1078359 (js-reviews) Depends On||1078371 (js-jquery1) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078359 [Bug 1078359] JavaScript review tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078371 [Bug 1078371] Review Request: js-jquery1 - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library - for legacy browsers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613001] Review Request: Heimdal - Alternative Kerberos implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001
--- Comment #66 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Upstream fixed a large bug in the krb5-config utility so I'm updating the Git
snapshot again to the tip of 1.6.
I've taken your advice and installed login.users(5) into the regular place and
removed ftpusers(5) from the package altogether. With these changes, we can
avoid shipping %{_mandir}/%{name} entirely.
Thank you for catching heimdal-klist breaking. I've fixed that in Patch0. It's
small enough that I'm comfortable carrying that one in Fedora.
Thanks also for catching the kadmind bug with systemd. I've fixed that in
Patch6 and submitted it upstream.
I'm a bit hesitant to remove xinted altogether since Alexander put so much work
into repairing those bits of the packaging, and I suspect that a number of
sites use it. However, I haven't heard from Alexander in a while, and I
completely agree that systemd should be the option that we promote going
forward. Unless I hear screams I'm going to remove xinted per your suggestion,
especially for the platforms that are already have systemd (ie RHEL 7 and
Fedora).
* Fri May 30 2014 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com -
1.6.0-0.5.20140529gitddde77b
- Update git snapshot to latest tip of heimdal-1-6-branch
- Use /sbin path in %%pre/%%post scripts for EL6 and EL5
- Install login.users(5) normally, since it doesn't conflict with anything
(RHBZ #613001)
- Don't ship ftpusers(5) (RHBZ #613001)
- Patch heimtools to deal with the commands' heimdal- prefixes (RHBZ #613001)
- Use simple systemd service type for kdc, kadmind, kpasswdd
- Add --detach flag in heimdal-ipropd-slave-wrapper to match the systemd
forking service type
- Patch kadmind to handle systemd's restrictions on setpgid() (RHBZ #613001)
Exact changes in Git:
https://gitorious.org/ktdreyer/heimdal-packaging/commit/d337a86fc85ea554ee55616870aab9df9cef0114
Spec URL: http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/heimdal.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/heimdal-1.6.0-0.5.20140529gitddde77b.fc21.src.rpm
F21 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6913952
--
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 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- So what's the story with the dependencies? I started on reviewing gzip, deflate and crc32 but both deflate and crc32 have been removed as dependencies and although gzip is still listed as a dependency it looks like you are patching it out in the spec? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 --- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- It's a dependency for running the test suite, which I'm not running right now due to a host of missing dependencies. I didn't bother pruning devDependencies since nothing cares about them and we're not installing this package.json, but if you'd prefer I can '%nodejs_fixdep --dev -r' the testsuite-related ones we're skipping 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 1078364] Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- No that's fine, just checking if it was still worth pursuing them, and it sounds like it is - they're all pending on action from the packager at the moment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #13 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
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-0.5.2-2.fc20.src.rpm
koij-build rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914046
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/flo/rpmbuild/SRPMS/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.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
--- the reason is justified in a comment above
[-]: 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
--- not my department because this is an *INFORMAL* for myself
[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.
---
[Bug 1103420] New: Review Request: python-autowrap - Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420 Bug ID: 1103420 Summary: Review Request: python-autowrap - Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: anto.tra...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap-0.2.14-1.20140321git26e901.fc20.src.rpm Description: This module uses the Cython header .pxd files to automatically generate Cython input (.pyx) files. It does so by parsing the header files and possibly annotations in the header files to generate correct Cython code. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #14 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
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-0.5.2-3.fc20.src.rpm
koij-build rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914050
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/flo/rpmbuild/SRPMS/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.
[x]: %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.
[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
--- not my department because this is an *INFORMAL* review for myself
[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.
--- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914050
[-]: %check is present
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
--- justified in comment
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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.
--- see scratch-build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914050
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ratools Short Description: Framework for creating, modifying and sending IPv6 Router Advertisements Upstream URL: https://www.nonattached.net/ratools Owners: flo besser82 Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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 1103420] Review Request: python-autowrap - Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420
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 #1 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
* Source0 has invalid URL:
INFO: Downloading (Source0):
https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip
WARNING: Cannot download url:
https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip
INFO: No upstream for (Source0):
autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip
--- Please change Source0 to a working URL [1]
* Version: 0.2.14 -- dafuq?
--- According to git-log in [2] upstream released 0.4.0 on 2014-02-04.
[1] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz
[2] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/commits/master
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103420] Review Request: python-autowrap - Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Björn besser82 Esser from comment #1)
* Source0 has invalid URL:
INFO: Downloading (Source0):
https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap-
26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip
WARNING: Cannot download url:
https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/autowrap-
26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip
INFO: No upstream for (Source0):
autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip
--- Please change Source0 to a working URL [1]
Download link does not end with related zipped archive.
Fixed.
* Version: 0.2.14 -- dafuq?
--- According to git-log in [2] upstream released 0.4.0 on 2014-02-04.
[1] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz
[2] https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/commits/master
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/python-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.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 613001] Review Request: Heimdal - Alternative Kerberos implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613001 --- Comment #67 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- We're going to need xinetd still on =EL6, so I'm fine with either keeping it for now and then migrating to systemd sockets after import, or adding the systemd socket stuff now with conditionals in the .spec file. Up to you as to how you want to maintain the spec file across the branches. -- 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 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 --- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- iris-1.0.0-0.17.20140424git4dcc9f49.fc20,jreen-1.2.0-2.fc20,jdns-2.0.0-7.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iris-1.0.0-0.17.20140424git4dcc9f49.fc20,jreen-1.2.0-2.fc20,jdns-2.0.0-7.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 1101235] Review Request: qauth - Qt user authentication library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101235 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- The submitter is not supposed to touch the fedora-review flag (not even to set it to ?). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@mit.edu Flags||needinfo?(l...@mit.edu) --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- I need of this package for others projects. Please, close this review as soon as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 --- Comment #3 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- I should be able to get to this tomorrow or Monday. I suspect the biggest issue will be the /usr/share/lemon thing: there's already a package called 'lemon'. Oops. I'll probably rename it to /usr/share/coin-or-lemon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097245] Review Request: python-kombu2 - AMQP Messaging Framework for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097245 Bug 1097245 depends on bug 1097206, which changed state. Bug 1097206 Summary: Update python-anyjson to 0.3.3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097206 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 1103453] New: Review Request: drupal7-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme with a responsive, mobile-first grid design
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103453 Bug ID: 1103453 Summary: Review Request: drupal7-zen - Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme with a responsive, mobile-first grid design 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-zen.spec SRPM URL: http://asrob.fedorapeople.org/SOURCES/drupal7-zen-5.5-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Zen is a powerful, yet simple, HTML5 starting theme with a responsive, mobile-first grid design. If you are building your own standards-compliant theme, you will find it much easier to start with Zen than to start with Garland or Stark. This theme has fantastic online documentation and tons of helpful code comments in its PHP, HTML, CSS and Sass. Fedora Account System Username: asrob koji url: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914917 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint drupal7-zen.spec ~/Downloads/drupal7-zen-5.5-1.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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #19 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- On an attempt to totally redo the spec file, based on the actual .java files, it seems like the following are required but are not in Fedora: - jackson-dataformat-yaml - jackson-dataformat-cbor - mustache - t-digest -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1/glite-lb-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1.fc21.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914958 * New release glite-lb-utils 2.3.10 (gLite LB 4.1.1) -- 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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #20 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- I've been (slowly) working on packaging from source. I spoke with a number of the ES dev team at Buzzwords (http://berlinbuzzwords.de) about it and it's some what complex, although I don't believe insurmountable, in that releases are often dependent on particular versions of other java packages (or at least particular versions). I think (from my terrible java packaging experience) there's a number of missing deps. Happy to help out where possible -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP-0.043-1.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 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 upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Sys-Detect-Virtualizat ||ion-0.106-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-31 20:00:40 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Sys-Detect-Virtualization-0.106-1.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 1103457] New: Review Request: liquid-dsp - Software-Defined Radio Digital Signal Processing Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103457 Bug ID: 1103457 Summary: Review Request: liquid-dsp - Software-Defined Radio Digital Signal Processing Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: floriant...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://openlabs.cc/linux/fedora/liquid-dsp/liquid-dsp.spec SRPM URL: http://openlabs.cc/linux/fedora/liquid-dsp/liquid-dsp-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: liquid-dsp is a free and open-source digital signal processing (DSP)library designed specifically for software-defined radios on embedded platforms. The aim is to provide a lightweight DSP library that does not rely on a myriad of external dependencies or proprietary and otherwise cumbersome frameworks. All signal processing elements are designed to be flexible, scalable, and dynamic, including filters, filter design,oscillators, modems, synchronizers, and complex mathematical operations. Fedora Account System Username: ftani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rel...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rel...@redhat.com Alias||ghc-srpm-macros 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
