[Bug 1109467] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109467 --- Comment #1 from David Dick --- koji builds at el6 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7044889 rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7044887 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109467] New: Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109467 Bug ID: 1109467 Summary: Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dd...@cpan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Term-Encoding.spec SRPM URL: http://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Term-Encoding-0.02-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Detect encoding of the current terminal Fedora Account System Username: ddick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065541] Review Request: mmg3d4 - anisotropic tetrahedral remesher / moving mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065541 --- Comment #7 from Alexey Vasyukov --- > In any case, I guess I'll take it up since the > review looks stalled. Alexey, I hope you don't mind. Ok. Since nobody volunteered to sponsor for 4 month, it was really stalled. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because LLVM API is never stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109366] Review Request: asm6809 - Multiple pass 6809 & 6309 cross assembler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109366
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
1. FAS username NULL
2. Once you used %configure, no need to insert cflags again(%{optflags}
inserted already)
3. Latest version is 2.1
--
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 1109444] Review Request: mmg3d - Anisotropic Tetrahedral Remesher / Moving Mesh Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109444 Christopher Meng 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 1109314] Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109314
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng ---
1. LDFLAGS not inserted(%{?__global_ldflags})
2. mv docs/*.txt %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}
mv docs/manual %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}
cp COPYING GPL3 00README.txt %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}
Didn't preserve the timestamp.
3. Hint: F20+ %{_docdir}/%{name} = %{_pkgdocdir}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109444] Review Request: mmg3d - Anisotropic Tetrahedral Remesher / Moving Mesh Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109444 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nonamed...@gmail.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 1108395] Review Request: netgen-mesher - Automatic mesh generation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395 --- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani --- Sure, just to clarify ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1108395] Review Request: netgen-mesher - Automatic mesh generation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395 --- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #5) > > ---> From the build log and buildroot, the patches are applied during > > build. > > %autosetup does this > I may not have been clear here but I was not complaining. All was well here. :) Looking at the rest 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 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 Bug 753577 depends on bug 1065541, which changed state. Bug 1065541 Summary: Review Request: mmg3d4 - anisotropic tetrahedral remesher / moving mesh generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065541 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065541] Review Request: mmg3d4 - anisotropic tetrahedral remesher / moving mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065541 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-06-13 21:21:28 --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1109444 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1109444 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109444 [Bug 1109444] Review Request: mmg3d - Anisotropic Tetrahedral Remesher / Moving Mesh Generator -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109444] Review Request: mmg3d - Anisotropic Tetrahedral Remesher / Moving Mesh Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109444 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), ||753577 CC||vasyu...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani --- *** Bug 1065541 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753577 [Bug 753577] Review Request: gmsh - finite element grid generator -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109444] New: Review Request: mmg3d - Anisotropic Tetrahedral Remesher / Moving Mesh Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109444 Bug ID: 1109444 Summary: Review Request: mmg3d - Anisotropic Tetrahedral Remesher / Moving Mesh Generator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mmg3d.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mmg3d-4.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Anisotropic Tetrahedral Remesher / Moving Mesh Generator Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065541] Review Request: mmg3d4 - anisotropic tetrahedral remesher / moving mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065541 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani --- gmsh is exactly what I'm looking at, one of the last big missing pieces for code_aster. I've now got all dependencies packages together and am about to see whether gmsh actually compiles... In any case, I guess I'll take it up since the review looks stalled. Alexey, I hope you don't mind. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan --- I can review this unless rathann (or someone else) will take care of it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1065541] Review Request: mmg3d4 - anisotropic tetrahedral remesher / moving mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065541 --- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Alexey and I discussed about packaging gmsh. I never got around to taking care of few other bits of gmsh - one of the parts is this package. Since I am not a packager sponsor, it would be a bit pointless(?) if I review Alexey's submission. Sandro, I can review this package if you take it up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1108395] Review Request: netgen-mesher - Automatic mesh generation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395
--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani ---
> ---> About this - Is there a specific reason why .desktop and icons are in
> -common instead of the base package?
Yes, you should theoretically be able to install just netgen-mesher-openmpi or
netgen-mesher-mpich and then, when loading the respective MPI environment, i.e.
/usr/lib64/openmpi/bin will be added to the PATH, and the desktop file should
*theoretically* launch that executable. So putting the desktop file in common
makes is valid for all variants of the netgen-mesher executable. Probably
somewhat of an overkill, but yeah :)
> ---> Could this (and few more shared-libs-calls-exit) be fixed or brought to
> attention of the upstream folks?
Yes, could also try to get some of the patches upstreamed
> ---> From the build log and buildroot, the patches are applied during build.
%autosetup does this
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/netgen-mesher.spec
SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/netgen-mesher-5.1-5.fc21.src.rpm
%changelog
* Sat Jun 14 2014 Sandro Mani - 5.1-5
- Add subpackage for private headers
- Add patches from salome
- Make common package noarch
- Add missing %%{?_isa}
Remarks about private headers and salome patch:
- Private headers are needed to compile the salome-smesh netgen plugin (which
is in turn required for salome-meca -> code aster). Instead of going the way of
a bundling exception and what not, I guess this is the simplest approach.
- Salome patches: reviewing the patch, they just fixed various issues with the
code, not otherwise changing the behaviour of the code. So again, just patching
the sources directly is easier than bundling a separate netgen in salome.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manisan...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Sandro Mani --- I'd like to move on with this: Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/tetgen.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/tetgen-1.5.0-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1065541] Review Request: mmg3d4 - anisotropic tetrahedral remesher / moving mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065541 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- -> with correct SRPM name Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mmg3d.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mmg3d-4.0.1-1.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 1098778] Review Request: perl-Redis - Perl binding for Redis database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098778 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from David Dick --- Happy to make both those changes Petr. I've re-built and pushed it out again. Thanks again! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Redis Short Description: Perl binding for Redis database Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Redis/ Owners: ddick Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105854] Review Request: perl-Promises - Implementation of Promises in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105854 --- Comment #4 from David Dick --- Thanks Petr! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105854] Review Request: perl-Promises - Implementation of Promises in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105854 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from David Dick --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Promises Short Description: Implementation of Promises in Perl Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Promises/ Owners: ddick Branches: f20 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1108355] Review Request: tcl-togl - A Tk OpenGL widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108355 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- tcl-togl-1.7-1.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 1065541] Review Request: mmg3d4 - anisotropic tetrahedral remesher / moving mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065541 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manisan...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani --- Hi Alexey, are you still pursuing this? I'm packaging code_aster, and hence need this. I've updated the spec for the latest version 4.0.1 and also did some cleanup. Result is here: Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mmg3d.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mmg3d4-4.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm If you aren't pursuing this anymore, I'm happy to take over. 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 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Depends On||1104802 --- Comment #25 from Jerry James --- There is currently a test failure when building in Rawhide, due to bug 1104802. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104802 [Bug 1104802] gp segfault -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1104604] Review Request: erlang-sd_notify - Erlang interface to systemd notify subsystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104604
John Eckersberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from John Eckersberg ---
This looks pretty good, the only nits are:
- Include LICENSE in %doc
- Use install -p to preserve timestamps
I'm going to go ahead and flag this as approved, just make sure to correct
those before you build for real.
Also I sanity checked that the systemd notify works as expected:
[fedora@jeckersb-rawhide 1104604-erlang-sd_notify]$ cat
/etc/systemd/system/notify-test.service
[Unit]
Description=Notify Test
[Service]
Type=notify
Environment="HOME=/root"
ExecStart=/usr/bin/erl -noshell -eval 'sd_notify:sd_notify(0, "READY=1")'
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
[fedora@jeckersb-rawhide 1104604-erlang-sd_notify]$ sudo service notify-test
start
Redirecting to /bin/systemctl start notify-test.service
[fedora@jeckersb-rawhide 1104604-erlang-sd_notify]$ sudo service notify-test
status
Redirecting to /bin/systemctl status notify-test.service
● notify-test.service - Notify Test
Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/notify-test.service; disabled)
Active: active (running) since Fri 2014-06-13 20:28:30 UTC; 7s ago
Main PID: 16473 (beam.smp)
CGroup: /system.slice/notify-test.service
└─16473 /usr/lib64/erlang/erts-5.10.4/bin/beam.smp -- -root
/usr/lib64/erlang -progname erl -- -home /root -- -noshell -eval
sd_notify:sd_notify(0, "READY=1")
Jun 13 20:28:30 jeckersb-rawhide.novalocal systemd[1]: Started Notify Test.
[fedora@jeckersb-rawhide 1104604-erlang-sd_notify]$
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.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/1104604-erlang-sd_notify/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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 allowe
[Bug 692733] Review Request: openvas-cli - Command-line tool to drive OpenVAS Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692733
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Fabian Affolter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (vas)".
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required -> OK for EPEL5
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed -> OK for EPEL5
[-]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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 71680 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed -> OK for EPEL5
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required -> OK for EPEL5
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to pre
[Bug 1108765] Review Request: dSFMT - Double precision SIMD-oriented Fast Mersenne Twister
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1108765] Review Request: dSFMT - Double precision SIMD-oriented Fast Mersenne Twister
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
Quick comments:
The license tag is wrong here, "Freely redistributable without restriction"
only is valid for Firmware.
http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~%20m-mat/MT/SFMT/LICENSE.txt is BSD.
You do not need to delete the %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install.
Outside of that, the rpmlint is mostly safe to ignore:
dSFMT.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudorandom -> pseudo
random, pseudo-random, pseudonymous
dSFMT.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudorandom -> pseudo
random, pseudo-random, pseudonymous
dSFMT.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdSFMT.so.2.2.3
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
Show me a fixed spec and I'll finish a formal 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 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1098534, which changed state. Bug 1098534 Summary: Package relying on a specific LLVM version https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098534 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1109390 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 [Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] New: Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Bug ID: 1109390 Summary: Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nalimi...@club.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=903308 SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/llvm3.3-3.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Versioned LLVM 3.3, parallel-installable with 3.4. Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan In order to package the Julia language (Bug 1040517), I need to be able to use LLVM 3.3 in Fedora 20 and 21, instead of 3.4 which is currently included there. The reason is, Julia uses the LLVM API which is not stable across releases. Cf. Bug 1098534 for more details. This package is just a modification of the llvm package version 3.3 which was included in F20. All paths have been changed to include the version, so that they do not conflict with other LLVM packages. The only exceptions are the -devel packages, which need to conflict since they determine with LLVM compilers will use. There's the question of the best name to use. Jens Petersen thinks the package should be called llvm33. I prefer llvm3.3 since it's clearer, but then if using a dot in the name is discouraged... I don't really care actually. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1040517 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 [Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109366] Review Request: asm6809 - Multiple pass 6809 & 6309 cross assembler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109366 Neil Horman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nhor...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nhor...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109366] New: Review Request: asm6809 - Multiple pass 6809 & 6309 cross assembler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109366 Bug ID: 1109366 Summary: Review Request: asm6809 - Multiple pass 6809 & 6309 cross assembler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: linvi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/asm6809.spec SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/asm6809-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: asm6809 is a multiple pass 6809 & 6309 cross assembler. Text is read in and parsed, then as many passes are made over the parsed source as necessary (up to a limit), until symbols are resolved and addresses are stable. Fedora Account System Username: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109314] Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109314 John W. Linville changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from John W. Linville --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lwtools Short Description: Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 Upstream URL: http://lwtools.projects.l-w.ca/ Owners: linville 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 1109314] Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109314
Neil Horman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Neil Horman ---
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.
NH: COPYING file indicates lwcc isn't licensed with gpl3, but packager has
removed that code it would seem, so I think we're good with just GPL3
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/nhorman/Downloads/1109314-lwtools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[NA]: 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.
[NA]: 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.
[NA]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[NA]: 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.
[NA]: 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.
NH: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7043827
[NA]: %check is present and all tests pass.
NH: No u
[Bug 1109314] Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109314 --- Comment #2 from John W. Linville --- Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/lwtools.spec SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/lwtools-4.10-1.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 1109314] Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109314 --- Comment #1 from John W. Linville --- Correcting incorrect references to "/usr/bin"... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1108395] Review Request: netgen-mesher - Automatic mesh generation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/netgen-mesher.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/netgen-mesher-5.1-4.fc21.src.rpm * Fri Jun 13 2014 Sandro Mani - 5.1-4 - Update netgen-5.1_build.patch - Add netgen-5.1_msc-ver.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 1109314] Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109314 Neil Horman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nhor...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nhor...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109314] New: Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109314 Bug ID: 1109314 Summary: Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: linvi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/lwtools.spec SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/lwtools-4.10-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: LWTOOLS is a set of cross-development tools for the Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309 microprocessors. It supports assembling to raw binaries, CoCo LOADM binaries, and a proprietary object file format for later linking. It also supports macros and file inclusion among other things. Fedora Account System Username: linville -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105854] Review Request: perl-Promises - Implementation of Promises in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105854 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata --- Interesting package. No issues found. Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1108785] Package Change Request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108785 Brad P. Crochet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-06-13 11:06:25 --- Comment #1 from Brad P. Crochet --- Found the package in RHEL 7 Optional. Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1108761] Package Change Request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108761 Brad P. Crochet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-06-13 11:00:46 --- Comment #3 from Brad P. Crochet --- I found the package in the RHEL 7 Optional channel. Closing this request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1083701] Review Request: rubygem-docile - Docile keeps your Ruby DSLs tame and well-behaved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083701 --- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-docile.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygems/rubygem-docile-1.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Ken, thank you for all the help with this package. I have updated to version 1.1.4, which allow the tests to run without coveralls. I have also implemented the various spec file changes that you had. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105854] Review Request: perl-Promises - Implementation of Promises in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105854 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858818] Review Request: sugar-srilanka - Game about the geography of Sri Lanka
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858818 --- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=5191832 | Requires | /usr/bin/env | /usr/bin/python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858818] Review Request: sugar-srilanka - Game about the geography of Sri Lanka
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858818 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2013-08-05 20:18:19 |2014-06-13 09:58:13 --- Comment #20 from Peter Robinson --- > Why can I see this? > > /usr/bin/env See it where? Spec looks fine to me -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098778] Review Request: perl-Redis - Perl binding for Redis database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098778 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata --- It looks pretty good, however! I don't see `utf8' used anywhere but in the POD of your patch. I'd say you can drop that BR entirely. Also, I think Time::HiRes is pulled in by the documentation (which shouldn't be happening and may change in the near future) rather than the actual code. I think it'd be safer if you required it explicitly. Consider doing those changes before pushing. I'm approving the package 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 953101] Review Request: razorqt - Lightweight desktop toolbox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953101 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #72 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- Package Change Request == Package Name: razorqt New Branches: epel7 Owners: tieugene -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098677] Review Request: med - Library to exchange meshed data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098677 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-13 08:45:22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #43 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Baurzhan Muftakhidinov from comment #42)
> Hi,
> I put rhel version there to ensure that build passes. Otherwise, without
> second check, %if 0%{?fedora} < 20 was true for rhel7 and build searched for
> llvm-3.3 and not for llvm33.
> Correct check should be like
> %if 0%{?fedora} < 20 AND NOT 0%{?rhel} but I don't know how to write it
> correctly.
Yeah, I found it a little weird at first, but actually I think it's OK and the
build works for all versions. I think we could get the same result by depending
on llvm == 3.3 || llvm3.3.
Now it would be good to understand why it doesn't work for EPEL6.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109049] Review Request: libcsv - small, simple and fast CSV library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109049 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk 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 1001008] Review Request: CImg - C++ Template Image Processing Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001008 Daniel Berrange changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(berrange@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #8 from Daniel Berrange --- I've tried to look at this a few times but the server is constantly offline. Today I see it is back but now giving 404 for those links. Could you upload them somewhere that's more reliably available like fedorapeople.org then I can review 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 1109049] Review Request: libcsv - small, simple and fast CSV library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109049
Lubomir Rintel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lkund...@v3.sk
--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel ---
This looks very nicely done.
* Package correctly named
* Latest version packaged
- License NOT correct (see below)
* License ok for Fedora
* SPEC file clean and legible
* Builds fine in mock
* Requires fine
* Provides fine
* Filelist fine
* Proper ldconfig scriptlets in place
There are some problems though:
0.) The license tag does not seem correct
According to libcsv.c it's LGPLv2+
1.) License text is missing
Please add %doc COPYING.LESSER. No idea why upstream ships GPL in COPYING;
nothing seems to be GPL-ed in the library; no need to ship that file.
2.) It's customary for RPMs to be portable across installations with manpage
compression turned off to do this:
-%doc %{_mandir}/man3/csv.3.gz
+%doc %{_mandir}/man3/csv.3*
3.) You may use %{version} macro to substitute versions for easier version
upgrades. This one is completely up to you -- not a review blocker.
By the way, upstream seems to use a weird name for their library; they probably
intended to use libcsv.so.3.0.3 instead of libcsv.so.3.0.2./csv.3.gz
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109049] Review Request: libcsv - small, simple and fast CSV library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109049
--- Comment #1 from Jan Holcapek ---
$ rpmlint libcsv.spec ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libcsv-3.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libcsv{,-devel}-3.0.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
3 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 1109049] New: Review Request: libcsv - small, simple and fast CSV library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109049 Bug ID: 1109049 Summary: Review Request: libcsv - small, simple and fast CSV library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: holca...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/holcapek/libcsv-rpm/master/libcsv.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/holcapek/libcsv-rpm/raw/master/libcsv-3.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: libcsv is a small, simple and fast CSV library written in pure ANSI C89 that can read and write CSV data. It provides a straight-forward interface using callback functions to handle parsed fields and rows and can parse improperly formatted CSV files. Fedora Account System Username: holcapek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
