[Bug 1026252] Review Request: kluppe - a live looping instrument
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026252 --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Hi Volker, snowed under with work at the moment. Will get to this next week. thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
1. Why was the release bumped to 12 suddenly?
2. %doc /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE
%doc /usr/share/man/man8/%{name}.8.gz
/usr/share -- %{_datadir}
/usr/share/doc -- %{_docdir}
/usr/share/man/ -- %{_mandir}
For manpages, it's better to include them as:
%{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.8*, as the * is helpful if the manpages are not
compressed(rpm will do this)
And dont mark these as %doc, they will be marked automatically by 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 1104907] Free and simple TrueCrypt Implementation based on dm-crypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104907 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-06-05 03:07:10 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- You should close it by yourself. Is there any problem with your mouse? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079111] Review Request: rubygem-chef-zero - Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079111 Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcl...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcl...@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 1079111] Review Request: rubygem-chef-zero - Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079111
--- Comment #2 from Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com ---
Created attachment 902442
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=902442action=edit
rpmlint of 2.0.2-1
Issues:
===
- LICENSE should be in main package as %doc
- mixlib-log/hashie requires are missing version specifications
- latest version not packaged (2.1.5 vs 2.0.2)
- License fields should be ASL 2.0
- rpmlint (E): summary-too-long, 79 chars max
- rpmlint (W): macro-in-comment %gem_dir, may be removed
- rpmlint (W): no-manual-page-for-binary chef-zero, should file an upstream
bug report to request one (can be waived)
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 50 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dcleal/tmp/1079111/review-
rubygem-chef-zero/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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]: 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
Ruby:
[X]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[X]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]:
[Bug 1079111] Review Request: rubygem-chef-zero - Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079111 Dominic Cleal dcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105015] New: Review Request: lua-ldap - LDAP client library for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105015 Bug ID: 1105015 Summary: Review Request: lua-ldap - LDAP client library for Lua Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/lua-ldap/lua-ldap.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/lua-ldap/lua-ldap-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: LuaLDAP is a simple interface from Lua to an LDAP client. It enables a Lua program to: * Connect to an LDAP server; * Execute any operation (search, add, compare, delete, modify and rename); * Retrieve entries and references of the search result. Fedora Account System Username: dcallagh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Christopher, that's
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
with a few explanations. Nowadays it is not mandatory anymore to use path
macros.
For paths which don't change often (or which have been pretty much constant
over many years), there is no benefit in using macros. Especially not if the
packaged software hardcodes its installation paths somewhere. However, if
parts of the build framework (such as a configure script) accept definitions
from within the spec file (such as with the %configure macro or options to
make), it can be beneficial to reuse the same path macros inside the %files
list(s).
And dont mark these as %doc, they will be marked automatically by RPM.
Which means it's not a strict don't, but nice to know.
$ rpm -E %__docdir_path
/usr/share/doc:/usr/share/man:/usr/share/info:/usr/share/gtk-doc/html::/usr/share/man:/usr/share/info:/usr/share/javadoc:/usr/doc:/usr/man:/usr/info:/usr/X11R6/man
fedora-review
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
It could be fixed with an added %dir entry for
/usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} or by including the entire directory instead
only the LICENSE file.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jduncan/1104746-soscleaner/licensecheck.txt
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
Rpmlint
soscleaner.src:17: W: setup-not-quiet
That refers to using %setup -q … and really is not an issue. Non-quiet %setup
output can be helpful in a build.log.
soscleaner.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/SOSCleaner.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
That's a strange error message:
rpmlint -i … would tell '''This text file contains a shebang or is located in a
path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus
be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the
executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.'''
Since it's the Python Modules' path and not a path for executables, the shebang
is harmless ... but useless. Probably that's why rpmlint points it out.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105044] New: Review Request: python-WSGIProxy2 - WSGI Proxy that supports several HTTP backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105044 Bug ID: 1105044 Summary: Review Request: python-WSGIProxy2 - WSGI Proxy that supports several HTTP backends Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bkab...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/WSGIProxy2/python-WSGIProxy2.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/WSGIProxy2/python-WSGIProxy2-0.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: WSGI Proxy that supports several HTTP backends. Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6926106 Note: it'll be possible to run tests during build of this package. However, the tests require newest python-webtest, which in turn requires this package to run its tests. So I'll add the %check section once python-webtest is updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105044] Review Request: python-WSGIProxy2 - WSGI Proxy that supports several HTTP backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105044 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rku...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rku...@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 1105050] New: Review Request: python-distlib - Low-level components of distutils2/packaging, augmented with higher-level APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105050 Bug ID: 1105050 Summary: Review Request: python-distlib - Low-level components of distutils2/packaging, augmented with higher-level APIs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mstuc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python-distlib.spec SRPM URL: http://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python-distlib-0.1.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Distlib contains the implementations of the packaging PEPs and other low-level features which relate to packaging, distribution and deployment of Python software. If Distlib can be made genuinely useful, then it is possible for third-party packaging tools to transition to using it. Their developers and users then benefit from standardised implementation of low-level functions, time saved by not having to reinvent wheels, and improved interoperability between tools. Fedora Account System Username: mstuchli koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6926117 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105050] Review Request: python-distlib - Low-level components of distutils2/packaging, augmented with higher-level APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105050 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rku...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rku...@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 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 Bug 1078371 depends on bug 1078364, which changed state. Bug 1078364 Summary: Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 Bug 1078368 depends on bug 1078364, which changed state. Bug 1078364 Summary: Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078364 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-06-05 06:39:19 --- Comment #14 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Built for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=521370 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #42 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- @björn Do you mind if assign the review somebody else. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105050] Review Request: python-distlib - Low-level components of distutils2/packaging, augmented with higher-level APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105050 --- Comment #1 from Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com --- BuildRequires: python-setuptools and BuildRequires: python3-setuptools are actualy not needed. Also distlib vendorize some python libs in distlib/_backport (tarfile.py, sysconfig.py, shutil.py). cat distlib/_backport/__init__.py Modules copied from Python 3 standard libraries, for internal use only. Individual classes and functions are found in d2._backport.misc. Intended usage is to always import things missing from 3.1 from that module: the built-in/stdlib objects will be used if found. There is SKIP_SLOW[1] env variable to skip some of those tests which fail, but it's only small bonus. :-) [1] http://pythonhosted.org//distlib/tutorial.html#pypi-availability -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1101043] Review Request: ming - A library for generating Macromedia Flash files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101043
--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3)
The fact you enabled perl mandates (MUSTFIX!) further Perl-related changes
to the spec:
- BR: perl(Cwd), perl(strict)
Why? I can't find those anywhere in the guidelines.
- Add R: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%...) to *-perl
Ack, I missed this one.
I'd propose the following change to your spec:
# diff -u ming.spec.orig ming.spec
--- ming.spec.orig2014-06-03 07:53:23.180652587 +0200
+++ ming.spec 2014-06-03 13:46:11.970988831 +0200
@@ -43,7 +43,13 @@
%package perl
Summary: A Perl module for generating Macromedia Flash files using the Ming
library
+Provides: perl-SWF = %{version}.%{release}
+Provides: perl-SWF%{_isa} = %{version}.%{release}
Was the dot (.) here intentional? I'd think it should be a dash (-)
The P: perl-SWF... are optional and just convenience to perl-users.
Right. A good idea to add them, though.
The LD_LIBRARY_PATH change would pickup shared libraries from RPM_BUILD_ROOT
instead of the build-tree. It's an option I consider to be superior. (Sorry
for having missed this possiblity in my previous comment).
Right.
As I am sure you can handle these issues after git-import: APPROVED
Thanks a lot for the review. Please mark it as ASSIGNED, too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092828] Review Request: turses - A Twitter client for the console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092828 --- Comment #7 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com --- [restaurador@/etc/yum.repos.d $] sudo yum info tweepy --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Available Packages Name: tweepy Arch: noarch Version : 2.0 Release : 2.fc20 Size: 56 k Repo: rawhide/x86_64 Summary : Twitter library for python URL : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/tweepy/ License : MIT Description : A library for accessing the Twitter.com API. Supports OAuth, covers the : entire API, and streaming API. let me know when it will be available and i will update my spec and sources Thanks!!! Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105044] Review Request: python-WSGIProxy2 - WSGI Proxy that supports several HTTP backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105044 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com --- Looks, good. 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #11 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- Michael, Christopher, et al, Thanks again for the continued feedback. I've made the above changes and things continue to look cleaner. koji builds cleanly, and fedora-review now shows cleaner as well. Cheers, Jamie Duncan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076517] Review Request: orocos-kdl - A framework for modeling and computation of kinematic chains
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076517 --- Comment #2 from Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de --- There is a new version available on github [1], I've updated the SPEC file in place. The new SRPM can be found at [2]. There is a new patch which updates the version [3]. I've tried to include the python package as well, but in order to build the python package, I need orocos-kdl already installed. I could adapt the build process to use the headers in the src dir and the newly built library files, but I'm not sure if this is the right way to do this. I figured it would be easier to put the python package in a seperate SPEC file instead. Any suggestions on that? In order to allow the use of the python bindings, I've added sip-devel as build requirement and enabled the build flag. I've removed the version constraints and changed the license as suggested. I've added documentation to the devel package. [1] https://github.com/orocos/orocos_kinematics_dynamics [2] http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-kdl-1.2.2-1.fc20.src.rpm [3] http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-kdl.version.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105050] Review Request: python-distlib - Low-level components of distutils2/packaging, augmented with higher-level APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105050 --- Comment #2 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert Kuska from comment #1) BuildRequires: python-setuptools and BuildRequires: python3-setuptools are actualy not needed. Good point. Also distlib vendorize some python libs in distlib/_backport (tarfile.py, sysconfig.py, shutil.py). cat distlib/_backport/__init__.py Modules copied from Python 3 standard libraries, for internal use only. Individual classes and functions are found in d2._backport.misc. Intended usage is to always import things missing from 3.1 from that module: the built-in/stdlib objects will be used if found. Well done noticing this, it did not occur to me to check, will fix. There is SKIP_SLOW[1] env variable to skip some of those tests which fail, but it's only small bonus. :-) [1] http://pythonhosted.org//distlib/tutorial.html#pypi-availability I did notice that, however since, as you note, it only skips some of the failing tests I chose not to use 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 1101043] Review Request: ming - A library for generating Macromedia Flash files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101043 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ming Short Description: A library for generating Macromedia Flash files Upstream URL: http://www.libming.org/ Owners: rathann Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #5 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- %define libemon_soversion 0.1
Use %global instead of %define
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
- Reminder:
%{_pkgdocdir} macro works differently in Fedora20, package building fails
now in f19.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927156
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
- Minor warnings
coin-or-lemon.src:85: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib
Needed for the patch.
coin-or-lemon.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 11)
Please, fix them.
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated, BSD (2 clause). 169 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1061985-coin-or-lemon/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: 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.
[Bug 1101043] Review Request: ming - A library for generating Macromedia Flash files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101043 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 1101043] Review Request: ming - A library for generating Macromedia Flash files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101043 --- Comment #6 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 1097327] Review Request: php-mikey179-vfsstream - PHP stream wrapper for a virtual file system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097327 --- Comment #14 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/434 have been approved (will be announce soon, just need to write it) So the name php-mikey179-vfsstream complies with the PHP Guidelines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097426] Review Request: dpdk - dataplane development toolkit for optimized network appliances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097426
--- Comment #8 from John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com ---
Not too bad, but a few issues identified...
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 /tmp/1097426-dpdk/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
Packaging is based on pre-release of 1.7.0. There actually is no
snapshot at the specified URL. The automated download just gets a
404-style HTML page.
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: dpdk. Illegal package name: dpdk. Does not
provide -static: dpdk.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
Needs something like the following in dpdk.spec:
%package devel
Provides: dpdk-static = %{version}-%{release}
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 3328000 bytes in 286 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
Move /usr/share/doc/dpdk-1.7.0/* to dpdk-doc-1.7.0 package?
- Comment above License: clause of dpdk.spec looks a bit garbled.
Please note that the kni bits (not packaged) seem to be covered by
GPL.
= 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]: 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]: 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.
Tarball contains LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL, but they do not apply
to any packaged files.
[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) GPL (v2), Unknown or generated, BSD (4
clause), BSD
(3 clause) LGPL (v2.1), BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause), GPL
(v2).
58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/tmp/1097426-dpdk/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
This one is N/A.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
This one is N/A.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
This one is N/A.
[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]: 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
[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 #6 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/coin-or-lemon_v3/coin-or-lemon.spec SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/coin-or-lemon_v3/coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927465 F19 koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927460 Description: LEMON stands for Library for Efficient Modeling and Optimization in Networks. It is a C++ template library providing efficient implementations of common data structures and algorithms with focus on combinatorial optimization tasks connected mainly with graphs and networks. Fedora Account System Username: amluto Also, what's this? [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. I'm not seeing that in a self-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 1079718] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Compress - Compress Catalyst response
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079718 Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.005-4 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-06-05 14:37:01 --- Comment #11 from Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de --- build and upload ready -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069988] Review Request: naemon - Open Source Host, Service And Network Monitoring Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069988 Bug 1069988 depends on bug 1079718, which changed state. Bug 1079718 Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Compress - Compress Catalyst response https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079718 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #6)
Also, what's this?
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
I'm not seeing that in a self-review.
It's related to the %{_pkgdocdir} directory that's co-owned by 'coin-or-lemon'
and 'coin-or-lemon-doc'. To me, it's okay because if separately installed both
packages need that directory. Ignore it.
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079732] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-CustomErrorMessage - Catalyst plugin to have more cute error message
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079732 Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.06-3 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-06-05 15:02:51 --- Comment #12 from Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de --- build and upload done -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069988] Review Request: naemon - Open Source Host, Service And Network Monitoring Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069988 Bug 1069988 depends on bug 1079732, which changed state. Bug 1079732 Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-CustomErrorMessage - Catalyst plugin to have more cute error message https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079732 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: coin-or-lemon Short Description: A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms Upstream URL: http://lemon.cs.elte.hu/trac/lemon Owners: amluto Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103457] Review Request: liquid-dsp - Software-Defined Radio Digital Signal Processing Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103457 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- FAS says: | Error! | | The following error(s) have occurred with your request: | |username: 'ftani' does not exist. It seems you meant: floriantani Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103457] Review Request: liquid-dsp - Software-Defined Radio Digital Signal Processing Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103457 --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Btw, same here as with your other review request (bug 1092431): | | %files | %doc COPYING HISTORY README.md TROUBLESHOOTING | The built package does not include anything other than these %doc files. That's not the only mistake in this spec file, but it tells that you haven't tested your packages 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 1101235] Review Request: qauth - Qt user authentication library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101235
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Only a brief look at the spec:
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
%files devel
%{_includedir}/QAuth/*
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 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 1102941] Review Request: php-pclzip - Compression and extraction functions for Zip formatted archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102941
Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com ---
THANKS for the review! I'll fix %{?dist} on import.
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: php-pclzip
Short Description: Compression and extraction functions for Zip formatted
archives
Upstream URL: http://www.phpconcept.net/pclzip
Owners: siwinski
Branches: f20 el6 epel7
InitialCC:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100926] Review Request: php-guzzlehttp-streams - Provides a simple abstraction over streams of data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100926 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- THANKS for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-guzzlehttp-streams Short Description: Provides a simple abstraction over streams of data Upstream URL: https://github.com/guzzle/streams Owners: siwinski Branches: f20 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097426] Review Request: dpdk - dataplane development toolkit for optimized network appliances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097426 --- Comment #9 from Neil Horman nhor...@redhat.com --- New packages: SPEC: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/dpdk.spec SRPM: https://people.redhat.com/nhorman/dpdk-1.7.0-0.4.20140521git519f32279.src.rpm These should address all the issues you noted, John. The only ones not explicitly fixed according to your suggestions are the static library packaging, as it should all be a DSO build (which is now fixed), and the licensing issue (because I felt it was too large an undertaking to just fix up). I have sent a note upstream about sorting out licensing clarity however. Let me know what you think. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105308] New: Review Request: python-eliot - Opinionated python logging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105308 Bug ID: 1105308 Summary: Review Request: python-eliot - Opinionated python logging system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tom.pri...@ualberta.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://data.hybridcluster.net/fedora-scratch/python-eliot.spec SRPM URL: http://data.hybridcluster.net/fedora-scratch/python-eliot-0.4.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Logging as Storytelling Fedora Account System Username: tomprince Eliot provides a structured logging and tracing system for Python that generates log messages describing a forest of nested actions. Actions start and eventually finish, successfully or not. Log messages thus tell a story: what happened and what caused it. F20 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927622 F21 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927624 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105308] Review Request: python-eliot - Opinionated python logging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105308 Tom Prince tom.pri...@ualberta.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069988] Review Request: naemon - Open Source Host, Service And Network Monitoring Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069988 Bug 1069988 depends on bug 1079749, which changed state. Bug 1079749 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Image-GD - A module for testing images using GD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079749 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079749] Review Request: perl-Test-Image-GD - A module for testing images using GD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079749 Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.03-3 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-06-05 16:29:18 --- Comment #14 from Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de --- build and upload completed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080201] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-View-GD - A Catalyst View for GD images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080201 Bug 1080201 depends on bug 1079749, which changed state. Bug 1079749 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Image-GD - A module for testing images using GD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079749 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 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 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 #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 #11 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- If you find yourself needing GLPK support, let me know and I can try to hack around the upstream bug that's currently blocking 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 1103420] Review Request: autowrap - Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420 --- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Release 0.5.0 SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap.spec SRPM: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-autowrap/autowrap-0.5.0-1.20140603git1753b9.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 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 #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004913] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-SourceView2 - Perl bindings for the GtkSourceView 2.x widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004913 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Gtk2-SourceView2-0.10- ||1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-05 17:52:57 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Gtk2-SourceView2-0.10-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098097] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PBKDF2 - PBKDF2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098097 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.140890- ||1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-05 17:55:12 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.140890-1.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 1004913] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-SourceView2 - Perl bindings for the GtkSourceView 2.x widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004913 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Gtk2-SourceView2-0.10- |perl-Gtk2-SourceView2-0.10- |1.fc19 |1.fc20 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Gtk2-SourceView2-0.10-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1090188] Review Request: rubygem-openscap - A FFI wrapper around the OpenSCAP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090188 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-5.fc ||20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-05 17:55:42 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-openscap-0.1.0-5.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 1079111] Review Request: rubygem-chef-zero - Self-contained, easy-setup, fast-start in-memory Chef server for testing and solo setup purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079111 --- Comment #3 from Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com --- Hi Dominic; thanks for the review. I've fixed the issues that I could, and updated to 2.1.5. Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jdunn/rubygem-chef-zero/rubygem-chef-zero.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jdunn/rubygem-chef-zero/rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Fsdb-2.50-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Fsdb-2.50-1.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 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096 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 1060502] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-cli - A library for implementing powerful command-line interfaces in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060502 Jeff Schroeder jeffschroe...@computer.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jeff Schroeder jeffschroe...@computer.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-mitchellh-cli Short Description: A library for implementing powerful command-line interfaces in Go Upstream URL: https://github.com/mitchellh/cli Owners: sejeff Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1101043] Review Request: ming - A library for generating Macromedia Flash files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101043
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #4)
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3)
The fact you enabled perl mandates (MUSTFIX!) further Perl-related changes
to the spec:
- BR: perl(Cwd), perl(strict)
Why? I can't find those anywhere in the guidelines.
We have a rule to specify all perl-modules as BR:, a package directly depends
upon while building:
In this case, it's perl_ext/Makefile.PL
# grep 'use ' perl_ext/Makefile.PL | sort -u
use Cwd qw(abs_path cwd);
use ExtUtils::MakeMaker;
use strict;
+Provides: perl-SWF = %{version}.%{release}
+Provides: perl-SWF%{_isa} = %{version}.%{release}
Was the dot (.) here intentional? I'd think it should be a dash (-)
You are right - These should be dashes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060924] Review Request: rubygem-unicode - Unicode normalization library for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060924
--- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Instead of packaging all of %{gem_instdir} in one go, please break the %files
lists out and use %{gem_libdir}, %exclude %{gem_cache}, %doc
%{gem_docdir} like other gems in Fedora. %{gem_docdir} should go into a -doc
subpackage.
- Please run the test suite during %check or add a note in the comments to
explain why the test suite does not work.
- Mind filing a bug upstream about shipping the license text? If the source
package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream,
the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Also, Ruby's license.txt
contains references to a file called LEGAL which isn't really relevant to
the unicode gem, or the BSDL file, which is not included in the RPM. It
would be great to just get that sorted out upstream in the gem.
- Source1 can use HTTPS.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See note above in Issues about using the gem_ RPM macros.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: 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 exists
[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
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: gems should require rubygems package
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= 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
[Bug 852213] Review Request: iii - A server for Eye-Fi SD cards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852213 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-06-05 22:53:51 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1033887] Review Request: sonic-pi - a programming environment to music with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033887 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-06-05 22:55:57 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1104579] Review Request: ghc-ieee754 - Utilities for dealing with IEEE floating point numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104579 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|unspecified |low CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Severity|unspecified |low --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This is needed for hastache which is used by new haskell-platform buildsys. http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/ieee754 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097327] Review Request: php-mikey179-vfsstream - PHP stream wrapper for a virtual file system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097327 --- Comment #15 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Provides php-composer(...) per new PHP Guidelines https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/e5ebae6502904d936479e4455d991bf805042cbc Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/e5ebae6502904d936479e4455d991bf805042cbc/php/php-mikey179-vfsstream/php-mikey179-vfsstream.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-mikey179-vfsstream-1.2.0-2.remi.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
