[Bug 978587] Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587
--- Comment #6 from Mat Booth ---
(In reply to Roland Grunberg from comment #5)
> Reviewed initially using 'fedora-review -b 978587 -P Java -m
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64'
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
>
> It seems auto-{provides,requires} are not generated because of the
> Bundle-ClassPath manifest attribute. It would be nice to change these to
> Require-Bundle (I believe the listed libraries have proper manifests), and
> make the libraries visible to others (through dropins) but I think the
> current state of Bundle-ClassPath + symlinking is fine for now.
>
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> - Package requires snakeyaml, and beust-jcommander at build/runtime but does
> not explicitly list these in BuildRequires or as a requirement of the binary
> rpm. Given that eclipse-testng will always depend on testng, which has its
> own requires on these, I'm willing to accept this.
>
> I'd like to know your thoughts on the above, but after that I think I'll
> have this approved.
>
>
You're absolutely right, all the deps appear to have osgi metadata in both F20
and rawhide.
In fact, doing it this way with Require-Bundle required I symlink additional
deps (all transient deps of the deps listed in the BR/Rs) in order to fully
resolve them -- the TestNG plug-in must not exercise the code paths that
require these deps because I've been using this package in real life for a long
time without issue.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109467 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 1109467] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109467 --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata --- There are some missing BRs this time. I understand those can be easily missed :) perl(Exporter) -- via `use base', lib/Term/Encoding.pm:6 perl(ExtUtils::MM_Unix) -- required in version_from() and abstract_from() which are called from all_from(), Makefile.PL:4 perl(warnings) -- via the `no' keyword, lib/Term/Encoding.pm:12 and t/02_env.t:13 The rest is fine, as always. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1106364] Review Request: perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike-Numeric - Moo types for numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1106364 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- Taking the 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 1109467] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109467 --- Comment #3 from David Dick --- No problems. Fixed and uploaded. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1106364] Review Request: perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike-Numeric - Moo types for numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1106364 --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata --- The %description could definitely use some improvements -- at least capitalize the first word and end it with a fullstop. Other suggestions, as usually: BR perl s/PERL_INSTALL_ROOT/DESTDIR/ The rest is fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109467 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata --- Ack. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109467 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from David Dick --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Term-Encoding Short Description: Detect encoding of the current terminal Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Term-Encoding/ Owners: ddick Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig Thanks again for the reviews 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 978587] Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587 --- Comment #7 from Mat Booth --- Here is the latest spec/srpm using Require-Bundle instead of Bundle-Classpath: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/eclipse-testng.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/eclipse-testng-6.8.6-3.fc21.src.rpm However, I have discovered that the real reason that "osgi()" requires are not generated is because there is a bug in the /usr/lib/rpm/osgi.req -- it does not handle dir-shaped bundles. I will file a bug separately, but the patch if you want to test it locally is attached. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 978587] Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587 --- Comment #8 from Mat Booth --- Created attachment 909491 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=909491&action=edit Patch to fix auto-requires for dir-shaped osgi bundles -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110246] New: Review Request: perl-Tree-R - Perl extension for the Rtree data structure and algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110246 Bug ID: 1110246 Summary: Review Request: perl-Tree-R - Perl extension for the Rtree data structure and algorithms 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-Tree-R.spec SRPM URL: http://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Tree-R-0.06-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Perl extension for the Rtree data structure and algorithms 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 978587] Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587 --- Comment #9 from Mat Booth --- I submitted a slightly better patch in the pull request: https://github.com/mizdebsk/javapackages/pull/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 1097714] Review Request: golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog - Designed to help you build a flexible logging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097714 --- Comment #2 from Matej Stuchlik --- I don't believe golang should be in BuildRequires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110246] Review Request: perl-Tree-R - Perl extension for the Rtree data structure and algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110246 --- Comment #1 from David Dick --- koji builds rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7050486 el6 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7050484 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #3 from Xavier Lamien --- Good catch on value path. I'll make the change. >> Finally, have you tried contacting the author? He might be interesting I >> applying your patch to make a real shared library upstream. Not yet. However, I'd prefer to add a configure step upstream. I've something downstream already. Will let you know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110246] Review Request: perl-Tree-R - Perl extension for the Rtree data structure and algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110246 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 1110246] Review Request: perl-Tree-R - Perl extension for the Rtree data structure and algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110246 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata --- Consider spelling `Rtree' as `R-tree' in the Summary. No issues. 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 1110246] Review Request: perl-Tree-R - Perl extension for the Rtree data structure and algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110246 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from David Dick --- Done. Thanks again Petr! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Tree-R Short Description: Perl extension for the R-tree data structure and algorithms Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Tree-R/ 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 1108037] Review Request: createrepo_as - A tool to create AppStream metdata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108037 Richard Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2014-06-17 07:38:33 --- Comment #6 from Richard Hughes --- This morning I've merged the small tool we need for generation into the appstream-glib package. This makes it easier to track AppStream API changes rather than in two projects and for two release schedules. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #14 from Sandro Mani --- @Fabian: Mind if I take over? -- 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 1108765] Review Request: dSFMT - Double precision SIMD-oriented Fast Mersenne Twister
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765 --- Comment #4 from Xavier Lamien --- Here we go! Spec URL: http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/infra-fp/fpc/dSFMT/dSFMT.spec SRPM URL: http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/infra-fp/fpc/dSFMT/dSFMT-2.2.3-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7051053 Lemme know if I miss something. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #15 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Taking review. -- 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 1078327] Review Request: github2fedmsg - Pubsubhubbub app that rebroadcasts GH events over fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327 --- Comment #9 from Ralph Bean --- Latest upstream that includes forgotten templates: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/github2fedmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/github2fedmsg-0.2.6-1.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 1110386] New: Review Request: codec2 - Next-Generation Digital Voice for Two-Way Radio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110386 Bug ID: 1110386 Summary: Review Request: codec2 - Next-Generation Digital Voice for Two-Way Radio Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hobbes1...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//codec2.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//codec2-0.3-1.svn1657.fc20.src.rpm Description: Codec 2 is an open source (LGPL licensed) speech codec for 2400 bit/s and below. This is the runtime library package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110386] Review Request: codec2 - Next-Generation Digital Voice for Two-Way Radio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110386 --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7051311 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #5 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Cool! Though you don't seem to have changed DESTDIR. Is this voluntary? To use your package to build Julia, I'd need you to apply two patches Julia is using. The first one is fairly trivial, but the second may be more controversial as it also makes public a few private functions: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/deps/dSFMT.c.patch https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/deps/dSFMT.h.patch I've asked more information about the patches on the Julia development list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-dev/oh_p5DeXzaQ/MU7d92O3Z7AJ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|ape...@gmail.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107441] Review Request: udt - UDP based Data Transfer Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107441
Florian "der-flo" Lehner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner ---
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:
"BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 7 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/flo/review/1107441-udt/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
---> clarified by a comment
[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 235520 bytes in 63 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7051522
[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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
---> clarified by a comment
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
---> clarified by a comment
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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 atta
[Bug 978587] Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587 Roland Grunberg changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Roland Grunberg --- Thanks for doing this! [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. However, adopting the new changes has introduced an issue. it looks like org.eclipse.testng is being hit by the javax.annotation 'uses' conflict between guava and org.eclipse.core.runtime on rawhide : org.osgi.service.resolver.ResolutionException: Uses constraint violation. Unable to resolve resource org.testng.eclipse [osgi.identity; osgi.identity="org.testng.eclipse"; type="osgi.bundle"; version:Version="6.8.6.201406171013"; singleton:="true"] because it is exposed to package 'javax.annotation' from resources org.eclipse.osgi [osgi.identity; osgi.identity="org.eclipse.osgi"; type="osgi.bundle"; version:Version="3.10.0.v20140606-1342"; singleton:="true"] and org.apache.geronimo.specs.geronimo-annotation_1.1_spec [osgi.identity; singleton="true"; osgi.identity="org.apache.geronimo.specs.geronimo-annotation_1.1_spec"; type="osgi.bundle"; version:Version="1.0.0"; singleton:="true"] via two dependency chains. I've filed it as Bug 1110413 . Regarding, '[x]: Package functions as described.', even with the above issue on rawhide, this package does build, install and resolve on f20 in the Eclipse runtime. Given that the mentioned issue is being looked into, I don't think we should hold off (especially when efforts have been made to adopt best practices). *** 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 978587] Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Mat Booth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-testng Short Description: TestNG plug-in for Eclipse Upstream URL: http://testng.org Owners: mbooth Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062623] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062623 Jerome Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jgli...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jerome Glisse --- Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/arm-none-eabi-gdb/arm-none-eabi-gdb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/arm-none-eabi-gdb/arm-none-eabi-gdb-7.6.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Updated the specfile to fix rpmlint complaint. From my point of view it is good to go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1062623] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062623 Jerome Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgli...@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 1062623] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062623 Jerome Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jerome Glisse --- ACCEPT So i fixed the nitpick of the original spec file and updated to 7.6. This package is indeed very useful to debug remotely some popular microcontroller. Still minor rpmlint errors/warning left but harmless. [glisse@dhcp-10-19-62-221 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/arm-none-eabi-gdb-7.6.2-1.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [glisse@dhcp-10-19-62-221 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/arm-none-eabi-gdb-7.6.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-gdb.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/arm-none-eabi-run.1.gz 19: warning: macro `"' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [glisse@dhcp-10-19-62-221 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/arm-none-eabi-gdb-devel-7.6.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-gdb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [glisse@dhcp-10-19-62-221 rpmbuild]$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo-7.6.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/arm-none-eabi-gdb/gdb-7.6.2/bfd/elf-nacl.c arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/arm-none-eabi-gdb/gdb-7.6.2/bfd/elf-nacl.h arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/arm-none-eabi-gdb/gdb-7.6.2/bfd/elf-vxworks.c arm-none-eabi-gdb-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/arm-none-eabi-gdb/gdb-7.6.2/bfd/elf-vxworks.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 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 1078327] Review Request: github2fedmsg - Pubsubhubbub app that rebroadcasts GH events over fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327 --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean --- Latest upstream with some fixed links: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/github2fedmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/github2fedmsg-0.2.7-1.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 692733] Review Request: openvas-cli - Command-line tool to drive OpenVAS Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692733 Michal Ambroz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Michal Ambroz --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openvas-cli Short Description: Command-line tool to drive OpenVAS Manager Upstream URL: http://www.openvas.org Owners: rebus fab huzaifas sgros xavierb Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107441] Review Request: udt - UDP based Data Transfer Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107441 Mattias Ellert changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert --- Many thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: udt Short Description: UDP based Data Transfer Protocol Owners: ellert Branches: f19 f20 master el5 el6 el7 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 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 Blocks|1104193 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104193 [Bug 1104193] rabbitmqctl doesn't work -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109490] Review Request: alglib - A numerical analysis and data processing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109490
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande ---
- Documentation html file is released under BSD license (its License text file
is missing).
Better if packaged as -doc sub-package.
- Please, fix all warnings/errors from rpmlint.
- alglib seems to provide two tests too.
See http://www.alglib.net/translator/man/manual.cpp.html#gs_testing
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1761280 bytes in 2 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
= 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.
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.
[!]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1109490-alglib/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: 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.
[]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]
[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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||coin-or-lemon-1.3-6.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-17 19:23:06 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- coin-or-lemon-1.3-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097426] Review Request: dpdk - dataplane development toolkit for optimized network appliances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097426 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||dpdk-1.7.0-0.6.20140603git5 ||ebbb1728.fc20 Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- dpdk-1.7.0-0.6.20140603git5ebbb1728.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 823352] Review Request: rubygem-chef - a client for the Chef config management system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823352 Bug 823352 depends on bug 1079111, which changed state. Bug 1079111 Summary: 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 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.f ||c20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-17 19:32:22 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-chef-zero-2.1.5-1.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 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Fsdb-2.50-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-17 19:33:23 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Fsdb-2.50-1.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 1103466] Review Request: perl-Net-Statsd - Sends statistics to the stats daemon over UDP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103466 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Net-Statsd-0.09-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-17 19:33:37 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Net-Statsd-0.09-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Fsdb-2.50-1.fc20 |perl-Fsdb-2.50-1.fc19 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Fsdb-2.50-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105531] Review Request: gen-oath-safe - Script for generating HOTP/TOTP keys (and QR code)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105531 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||gen-oath-safe-0.9.0-1.fc20 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- gen-oath-safe-0.9.0-1.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 1103927] Review Request: imaptest - A generic IMAP server compliancy tester
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103927
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck:
Unknown or generated
imaptest-20140528/ltmain.sh
imaptest-20140528/src/checkpoint.c
imaptest-20140528/src/checkpoint.h
imaptest-20140528/src/client-state.c
imaptest-20140528/src/client-state.h
imaptest-20140528/src/client.c
imaptest-20140528/src/client.h
imaptest-20140528/src/commands.c
imaptest-20140528/src/commands.h
imaptest-20140528/src/imaptest-lmtp.c
imaptest-20140528/src/imaptest-lmtp.h
imaptest-20140528/src/imaptest.c
imaptest-20140528/src/imapurl.c
imaptest-20140528/src/imapurl.h
imaptest-20140528/src/mailbox-source.c
imaptest-20140528/src/mailbox-source.h
imaptest-20140528/src/mailbox-state.c
imaptest-20140528/src/mailbox-state.h
imaptest-20140528/src/mailbox.c
imaptest-20140528/src/mailbox.h
imaptest-20140528/src/profile-parse.c
imaptest-20140528/src/profile.c
imaptest-20140528/src/profile.h
imaptest-20140528/src/search.c
imaptest-20140528/src/search.h
imaptest-20140528/src/settings.h
imaptest-20140528/src/test-exec.c
imaptest-20140528/src/test-exec.h
imaptest-20140528/src/test-parser.c
imaptest-20140528/src/test-parser.h
imaptest-20140528/src/user.c
imaptest-20140528/src/user.h
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 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
[Bug 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064 --- Comment #12 from Dennis Payne --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/btbuilder/master/btbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/btbuilder/btbuilder-0.4.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Updating to the new btbuilder release. No other changes to the spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 --- Comment #12 from John Zaitseff --- For some reason, both I and others have let this packaging request remain unresolved. Could someone please include this simple game as part of Fedora. The latest version is available at: Spec URL: ftp://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/trader/unix/binary/fedora/trader.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/trader/unix/binary/fedora/trader-7.5-1.fc20.src.rpm x86_64 binary URL: ftp://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/trader/unix/binary/fedora/trader-7.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm Please let me know if I need to do anything to expedite this package getting into Fedora. 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 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- I think you need to request a permission: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107441] Review Request: udt - UDP based Data Transfer Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107441
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Good work, Flo! There are just two small things I want to mention,
additionally:
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in udt-devel
---> please fix up the requires of the -devel-subpkg.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
---> `sed 's/\r//' -i doc/doc/udtdoc.css` doesn't preseve the timestamp
of that particular file with will be packaged in -devel. ;)
Using something like this would be better by the meaning of
preserving
the file's timestamp:
_file="doc/doc/udtdoc.css"
sed -e 's!\r$!!g' < ${_file} > ${_file}.new && \
touch -r ${_file} ${_file}.new && \
mv -f ${_file}.new ${_file}
Please change those two small accordingly before / during import, Matthias.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107441] Review Request: udt - UDP based Data Transfer Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107441 --- Comment #8 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- btw. The branch used for building EPEL-pkg for rhel / CentOS 7 is called 'epel7'. ;) I just fixed your scm-request, Matthias. ^^ New Package SCM Request === Package Name: udt Short Description: UDP based Data Transfer Protocol Owners: ellert Branches: f19 f20 master el5 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 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu Flags||needinfo?(ti...@math.uh.edu ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070406] Review Request: signon - Accounts framework for Linux and POSIX based platforms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070406 --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: === - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: signon-doc : /usr/share/doc/signon-plugins-dev/example/exampledata.h signon-doc : /usr/share/doc/signon-plugins-dev/example/exampleplugin.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 24412160 bytes in 1101 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation = 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]: 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. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "LGPL (v2.1)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: LGPL (v2.1) --- signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/async-dbus-proxy.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/async-dbus-proxy.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authservice.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authservice.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authserviceimpl.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authserviceimpl.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authsession.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authsession.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authsessionimpl.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/authsessionimpl.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/connection-manager.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/connection-manager.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/dbusinterface.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/dbusinterface.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identity.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identity.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identityimpl.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identityimpl.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identityinfo.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identityinfo.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identityinfoimpl.cpp signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/identityinfoimpl.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/libsignoncommon.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/sessiondata.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/signon.h signon-8.56/lib/SignOn/signonerror.h signon-8.56/lib/plugins/SignOn/authpluginif.h signon-8.56/lib/plugins/SignOn/signonplugincommon.h signon-8.56/lib/plugins/SignOn/uisessiondata.h signon-8.56/lib/plugins/SignOn/uisessiondata_priv.h signon-8.56/lib/plugins/signon-plugins-common/SignOn/blobiohandler.cpp signon-8.56/lib/plugins/signon-plugins-common/SignOn/blobiohandler.h signon-8.56/lib/plugins/signon-plugins-common/SignOn/ipc.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-access-control-manager.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-access-control-manager.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-crypto-manager.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-crypto-manager.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-key-authorizer.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-key-authorizer.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-key-manager.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-key-manager.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-secrets-storage.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/abstract-secrets-storage.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/debug.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/debug.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/export.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/extension-interface.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/extension-interface.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/key-handler.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/key-handler.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/misc.cpp signon-8.56/lib/signond/SignOn/misc.h signon-8.56/lib/signond/signoncommon.h signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/crypto-handlers.cpp signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/crypto-handlers.h signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/crypto-manager.cpp signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/crypto-manager.h signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/cryptsetup-plugin.cpp signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/cryptsetup-plugin.h signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/debug.h signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/misc.cpp signon-8.56/src/extensions/cryptsetup/misc.h signon-8.56/src/plugins/example/exampledata.h signon-8.56/src/plugins/example/exampleplugin.cpp signon-8.56/src/plugins/example/exampleplugin.h signon-8.56/src/plugins/password/passwordplugin.cpp signon-8.56/src/plugins/password/passwordplugin.h signon-8.56/src/plugins/test/ssotest2data.h signon-8.56/src/plugins/test/ssotest2plugin.cpp signon-8.56/src/plugins/test/ssotest2plugin
