[Bug 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015 --- Comment #7 from Cheng-Chia Tseng --- OK, I finally figured it out. Changlog about this release is added. As issue 4, I would like to want this package included in epel6 or 7 too. Sorry that I don't understand the question well at first. :p The link of guidelines you provided at comment 4 mentioned that the %clean section is not required for F-13 and above. Each package for F-12 and below (or EPEL 5) MUST have a %clean section. So if I want it included in epel6 and above, I don't have to add those %clean section back right? Those un-necessary comment lines are all removed this time. :) Spec URL: http://zerng07.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/cwtex-q-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://zerng07.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/cwtex-q-fonts-0.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Thanks for your help! -- 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 823344] Review Request: rubygem-ohai - detects data about your system, exports as JSON for use with Chef
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823344 --- Comment #14 from Julian C. Dunn --- Here is the updated spec and SRPM for Ohai 7.0.4, patched to use ffi-yajl. I'm comfortable using the patch because it's the same one going into future versions of Ohai and is already in Ohai master. https://github.com/opscode/ohai/commit/86b123e52e59a00f7a48da7479a40df72e1cfbd7 Spec: https://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/rubygem-ohai/rubygem-ohai.spec SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/rubygem-ohai/rubygem-ohai-7.0.4-1.fc21.src.rpm There are a few errors from rpmlint: rubygem-ohai.noarch: E: devel-dependency yajl-devel rubygem-ohai.noarch: E: useless-provides rubygem(ohai) The first one is necessary because FFI tries to load by using 'libyajl.so', however only the devel package provides this symlink. Let me know if this is acceptable or if it is something to be raised with the yajl maintainer. The second I am ignoring because it is necessary to build on EPEL, which I will work on after this is accepted into Fedora. -- 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||netgen-mesher-5.1-9.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-28 22:54:04 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- netgen-mesher-5.1-9.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 1106364] Review Request: perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike-Numeric - Moo types for numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1106364 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike-N ||umeric-1.02-2.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-28 22:53:39 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike-Numeric-1.02-2.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 1113912] Review Request: perl-Geo-ShapeFile - Perl extension for handling ESRI GIS Shapefiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113912 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Geo-ShapeFile-2.60-1.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 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #3) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > > Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because > > LLVM API is never stable. > Well, it really depends on how Fedora's and Julia's schedules interact in > the future. It depends on Julia itself, actually. > But OTOH when backporting a new LLVM version to a published Fedora > release, it's likely that Julia will break as there will likely be some lag > between LLVM's and Julia's releases. I don't think you need to update julia for each Fedora release, we need to keep something stable. > With an unstable API like LLVM's, > versioned parallel-installable packages are kind of inevitable. Still not a good reason. If something can't be considered stable, you'd better package it in copr first. > (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) > > Does Julia upstream have any plans to move to llvm-3.4 btw? > Yes, the next version will use LLVM 3.5. (Support for 3.4 is almost present > already, but there are a few bugs and it has not been tested thoroughly > enough that the developers feel confident to use it now.) Oh, so llvm3.5 will appear in review queue again? What about 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 etc.? -- 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 1112434] Review Request: brd - Scans directories and files for damage due to decay of storage medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nonamed...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Since the bug is already assigned, changing status to "Assigned". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1112434] Review Request: brd - Scans directories and files for damage due to decay of storage medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434 --- Comment #6 from Denis Fateyev --- I mean, you created the release tarball: https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/archive/1.0.tar.gz So you can surely use this path in source instead of that based on commit hash. -- 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 1067003] Review Request: perl-Time-ParseDate - Date parsing both relative and absolute
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003 --- Comment #6 from Denis Fateyev --- Fixed 1 and 2. As for `%defattr`, I'm also planning to package for RHEL5, and kept it since it doesn't break anything on newer versions. http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora20/testing/perl-Time-ParseDate.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1112434] Review Request: brd - Scans directories and files for damage due to decay of storage medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434 --- Comment #5 from Jeff Backus --- Hi Denis, Thanks for reviewing! Hmm. I apologize, please clarify re: which commit I should be referencing. I am referencing commit f984731, which is what shows up at: https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/tags Additionally, git rev-parse 1.0 produces: f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07 If there is another rev I should be referencing, would you please give me a hint? :) Thanks again! Regards, Jeff -- 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 1112434] Review Request: brd - Scans directories and files for damage due to decay of storage medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
--- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mock/sandbox/test/1112434-brd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: brd-1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
brd-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed pack
[Bug 1067003] Review Request: perl-Time-ParseDate - Date parsing both relative and absolute
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003 --- Comment #5 from Xavier Bachelot --- The package looks good, there are only a couple mostly cosmetic issues : - blank line at top of spec. - it would be clearer to not mix Requires and BuildRequires. Move the only Requires line below the last BuildRequires line. - the %defattr line in the %files section is not needed for anything but EL5. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1114210] Review Request: sispmctl - Control Gembird SIS-PM programmable power outlet strips
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114210 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: f89d2820ca48794b80df81309910299dbc1278e1 sispmctl-3.1.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. Ok BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - rpmlint complains about "incorrect-fsf-address", please let upstream know about this issue The package is 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 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #4 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Bump! -- 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 1067003] Review Request: perl-Time-ParseDate - Date parsing both relative and absolute
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003 --- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev --- Note: this package (`perl-Time-ParseDate`) replaces obsoleted package `perl-Time-modules`. The reviewer should consider https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process Finally, I've made the changes mentioned above. Spec URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora20/testing/perl-Time-ParseDate.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora20/testing/SRPMS/perl-Time-ParseDate-2013.1113-2.fc21.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7086841 (Rawhide) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7086837 (EPEL 7) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7086839 (EPEL 6) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7087122 (EPEL 5) -- 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 1062911] Review Request: srcpd - Simple Railroad Command Protocol (SRCP) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- srcpd-2.1.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1114215] New: Review Request: glite-lb-ws-test - Tests and usage examples of L&B Web Service interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114215 Bug ID: 1114215 Summary: Review Request: glite-lb-ws-test - Tests and usage examples of L&B Web Service interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-ws-test-1.4.11-1/glite-lb-ws-test.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-ws-test-1.4.11-1/glite-lb-ws-test-1.4.11-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tests and usage examples of Logging and Bookkeeping Web Service interface. Fedora Account System Username: valtri koji scratch build: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-ws-test-1.4.11-1/koji.txt -- 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 1114212] New: Review Request: glite-lb-server - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114212 Bug ID: 1114212 Summary: Review Request: glite-lb-server - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-server-3.0.18-1/glite-lb-server.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-server-3.0.18-1/glite-lb-server-3.0.18-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: glite-lb-server is the gLite Logging and Bookkeeping server. This package contains the L&B server daemon (glite-lb-bkserverd) and a tool for rebuilding server indices (glite-lb-bkindex). Fedora Account System Username: valtri - koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7086696 - I'm upstream maintainer - different permission for /var/spool/glite/lb-locallogger is intended (directory needed to be shared with users in the same group) -- 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 1114210] Review Request: sispmctl - Control Gembird SIS-PM programmable power outlet strips
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114210 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@danny.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz 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 1114210] New: Review Request: sispmctl - Control Gembird SIS-PM programmable power outlet strips
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114210 Bug ID: 1114210 Summary: Review Request: sispmctl - Control Gembird SIS-PM programmable power outlet strips Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jpi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpirko/fedora_pkg_review/sispmctl_1/sispmctl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpirko/fedora_pkg_review/sispmctl_1/sispmctl-3.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The sispmctl tool can control Gembird SIS-PM Silver Shield programmable power outlet strips (also known under the name Revolt Intelli-Plug) from the command line. It can be used to switch on or off any of the programmable power sockets of the SIS-PM via USB. It can also show the current status of each power socket, and it can handle multiple SIS-PM devices, too. Fedora Account System Username: jirka -- 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
Ken Dreyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Ken Dreyer ---
A straightforward package with no issues. APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- None
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to prese
[Bug 1108765] Review Request: dSFMT - Double precision SIMD-oriented Fast Mersenne Twister
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765 --- Comment #7 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- I've made a SRPM with the two patches merged into one (since they are highly related). It works for me with Julia: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/dSFMT-2.2.3-3.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 1089494] Review Request: nodejs-weak-map - A WeakMap shim for Node.js and browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Jamie Nguyen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-weak-map Short Description: A WeakMap shim for Node.js and browsers Upstream URL: https://github.com/drses/weak-map Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089494] Review Request: nodejs-weak-map - A WeakMap shim for Node.js and browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes --- Looks good now. Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089494] Review Request: nodejs-weak-map - A WeakMap shim for Node.js and browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494
--- Comment #8 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-weak-map-1.0.5-1.fc21.no
[Bug 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) --- A quick look into given spec link issues 1, 2 fixed issue 3 fixed but you need to add changelog entry with every update and write lines there about what has changed from last release. For the new package you can add changelog like * Sat Jun 28 2014 Cheng-Chia Tseng - 0.2-2 - fixed issues reported in package review issue 4, you have not replied whether you want this package only for Fedora or you also want this package in el6 or epel7 remove un-necessary comment lines -- 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 1070398] Review Request: netstat-monitor - A command line tool to monitor network connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070398 Bug 1070398 depends on bug 1070357, which changed state. Bug 1070357 Summary: New upstream release of python-netaddr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070357 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015 --- Comment #5 from Cheng-Chia Tseng --- OK, I have corrected those issues you mentioned and re-uploaded to my fedorapeople space. Release tag number is updated too. Spec URL: http://zerng07.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/cwtex-q-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://zerng07.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/cwtex-q-fonts-0.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Thanks a lot! :) -- 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 1074128] Review Request: libserialport - Library for accessing serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074128 --- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen --- Bundling exception was approved. Please add the appropriate Provides. -- 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 1100885] Review Request: nodejs-tiletype - Detect common map tile formats from a buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100885 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-tiletype Short Description: Detect common map tile formats from a buffer Owners: tomh jamielinux 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 1112864] Review Request: elpa - High-performance library for parallel solution of eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864 --- Comment #12 from Sandro Mani --- Hmpf, didn't notice that my comment wasn't submitted due to mid-air collission... Anyway, the comment was: elpa-openmpi.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libelpa.so.0.0.0 Rest is good! -- 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 1100885] Review Request: nodejs-tiletype - Detect common map tile formats from a buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100885 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen --- Package approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100885] Review Request: nodejs-tiletype - Detect common map tile formats from a buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100885
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-tiletype-0.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-tiletype-0.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm
nodejs-tiletype.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmli
[Bug 1100885] Review Request: nodejs-tiletype - Detect common map tile formats from a buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100885 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g -- 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 1096450] Review Request: nodejs-nan0 - Native Abstractions for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096450 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-06-28 10:24:48 -- 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 1086231] Review Request: nodejs-jsonparse - Pure-js JSON streaming parser for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086231 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-28 10:24:12 -- 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 1086245] Review Request: nodejs-jsonstream -streaming JSON.parse and stringify for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086245 Bug 1086245 depends on bug 1086231, which changed state. Bug 1086231 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-jsonparse - Pure-js JSON streaming parser for node.js https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086231 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 1086217] Review Request: nodejs-strip-json-comments - Strip comments from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086217 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-28 10:23:38 -- 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 1089494] Review Request: nodejs-weak-map - A WeakMap shim for Node.js and browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494 --- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen --- Thanks for the review, and sorry for the delay! Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/weak-map/nodejs-weak-map.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/weak-map/SRPMS/nodejs-weak-map-1.0.5-1.fc21.src.rpm * Sat Jun 28 2014 Jamie Nguyen - 1.0.5-1 - update to upstream release 1.0.5 - tests have been removed from NPM tarball so download separately -- 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 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Jamie Nguyen --- Assuming you add those provides, package approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1112434] Review Request: brd - Scans directories and files for damage due to decay of storage medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434 Denis Fateyev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|de...@fateyev.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 1078327] Review Request: github2fedmsg - Pubsubhubbub app that rebroadcasts GH events over fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327 --- Comment #14 from Jamie Nguyen --- You just need to add this: Provides: bundled(bootstrap) Provides: bundled(jquery) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_temporary_exceptions -- 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 #13 from Jamie Nguyen ---
Very sorry Ralph for the delay :(
Thanks for the fixes!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"AGPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mockbuild/review/github2fedmsg/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Sou
[Bug 1111948] Review Request: kf5-kio - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for filesystem abstraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948 --- Comment #5 from Dan Vrátil --- Spec URL: http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kf5/review/kf5-kio.spec SRPM URL: http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kf5/review/kf5-kio-4.100.0-2.fc20.src.rpm - fixed licenses - added %%config - added update-desktop-database -- 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 1114187] New: Review Request: python-shadowsocks - A fast tunnel proxy that help you get through firewalls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114187 Bug ID: 1114187 Summary: Review Request: python-shadowsocks - A fast tunnel proxy that help you get through firewalls Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: robinlee.s...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-shadowsocks.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-shadowsocks-2.0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Shadowsocks is a socks5 tunnel proxy, designed to secure your Internet traffic. This package contains the client and server implementation for Shadowsocks in Python. Fedora Account System Username: cheeselee -- 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
